A pub whose distinctive tiles were hacked off by its owner remains unrepaired a year on, despite efforts to make him restore them.
Charlie Southall hired a team of builders to tear down the green tiles from the exterior walls of the Montreal Arms in Albion Hill on March 29, 2022.
Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas joined a huge outcry at the damage, describing it as “utter vandalism”, and by 4pm that day, the council had issued a notice requiring him to stop.
An enforcement notice requiring him to replace the tiles like for like was subsequently issued – but after he appealed it, it is currently on hold until a planning inspector rules.
Meanwhile, the pub is surrounded by scaffolding, and little or no work appears to have been done on it since.
Neighbour Ken Frost said: “One year on, and just look at the state of it!
“I hope that the planning inspector rules in favour of the local community, and that as soon as that ruling is issued the tiles are replaced without delay and rancour.”
The appeal to Brighton and Hove City Council’s enforcement notice was made by Mr Southall’s company Dragonfly Architectural Services Ltd on 22 June last year, submitted by his planning agent Connor McCarron.
Final comments were due on 12 September, and a decision date has yet to be set.
Before the deadline for comments, posters were put up on the pub itself, and leaflets through people’s door asking people to support the appeal.
They said the tiled frontage had been damaged before Mr Southall bought the pub in March last year, for £420,000.
It also said Mr Southall had been subjected to “harassment, intimidation and abuse,” and that he wants to retile the pub, but not with like for like tiles.
It also asked the community for ideas for the pub’s future, including reopening it as a pub, cafe or yoga studio, or converting it into a townhouse.
After he bought it, Mr Southall said he wanted to run it as a refuge for Ukranian women and children, and launched a crowdfunder to cover the conversion costs.
But he abandoned his plans after neighbours questioned his motives, pointing out that a change of use would greatly increase the value of the building.
Recently adopted planning rules now state that anyone wanting to convert a pub in Brighton and Hove must put it on the market for sale or to let at a reasonable market rent with no offers for two years before change of use is granted.
Vandalism is exactly what it was – a wilful act of destruction in a bid to get to the desired minimum cost conversion to residential (in my personal opinion).
I also strongly hope that reinstatement is enforced as properties like this which contribute to the rich history of the city should be preserved.
Charlie Southall deserves to have the book thrown at him for this vandalism. His bruised ego deserves another knock. How could he do such a thing? It’s such petty behaviour from a man who couldn’t get his own way.
Unfortunately, it seems to be usual these days for everyone who doesn’t agree with a council planning decision to appeal, no matter how worthless the appeal, and I would guess there’s a big log-jam at the planning inspectorate because each item has to be inspected and considered. If you look at the papers for the next planning committee, there are quite a few summary pages of decisions by the inspectorate on matters like extensions, dormers, building a dwelling in a garden and increasing the occupancy of HMOs. Most of them uphold the planning officer’s decision and they are mostly very trivial matters.
Perhaps a higher bar for an appeal might be the way to go. Having said all that, this particular appeal is just cynical in the extreme. I daresay, though, that even if the inspectorate agrees with the council’s actions, this man will find a way to wriggle out of it.
I so hope the council doesn’t give in – in this Mexican stand off.
It would be so easy here to let the selfish developer get what he wants – and the pub has probably already been lost to the local community.
As it happens, I lived opposite this pub, for thirty years. It’s not acceptable to destroy another distinctive building and without following due process, on the basis of greed.
Surely must be a prime spot for affordable housing? Three flats 50k each? Simple
500k maybe.