Arguments as to whether strict conditions on the replacement of a Brighton pub’s green tiles should be upheld are to be heard at a public hearing.
Charlie Southall, who “unlawfully” ripped the tiles off the Montreal Arms shorty after he bought it last year, is arguing that conditions Brighton and Hove City Council imposed when improving his plans to restore them are too restrictive.
He is also appealing against its refusal of alternative plans to put tiles on the upper half of the building and allow it to be used for an alternative commercial use such as a cafe or shared working space.
Both appeals will be discussed at a public hearing at the Jubilee Library on Wednesday, September 25.
Mr Southall previously appealed against an enforcement notice requiring him to replace the tiles, which was largely upheld.
The council put 17 conditions on the approval of the renovation plans including submitting samples of the tiles, a full photographic survey of the existing tiling and soundproofing between the pub and the flat above.
Mr Southall is objecting, saying: “Some of the conditions imposed on the planning permission granted are unnecessary, unenforceable, vague, unreasonable, and irrelevant. They do not meet the criteria of being necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.”
He also claims the building has been misclassified by the council as listed – but the council says it has never claimed it is nationally listed, simply locally listed.
Mr Southall added: “As the owner, I have already committed to maintaining the architectural integrity and historical character of the building. The development plans respect the building’s local significance, and imposing such detailed conditions is redundant and overreaches the advisory intent of local listing.”
In its written response, the council said: “[The pub] is, however, a heritage asset so is considered to have a degree of significance which must be given weight in making planning decisions.”
In relation to a condition requiring the existing tiles be retained where possible, it says: “The building has already been subject to unlawful development through the removal of a significant amount of the glazed tiles. This condition ensures that works can commence, but restricts further unnecessary removal.”
In his appeal against the refusal of a change of use, Mr Southall argues the building is in significant disrepair, and running it as a pub is not viable.
The council’s written response says: “The appellant states that sufficient evidence has been provided to show the existing public house use is no longer viable. The officer report details how the evidence is lacking generally and specifically in relation to (the council’s policy for changing the use of a pub).
“The appellant was advised the submitted information was insufficient and not robust, but failed to provide any further evidence.”
It adds: “We would also note that the appellant initially agreed to a pay for the [council] to secure an external consultant to review building surveys submitted with the application the subject of this appeal.
“However, he subsequently refused to meet any fees associated with verification of the reports submitted.
“The appellant also fails to note that elements of the existing disrepair to the property, particularly in relation to the glazed tiles, have been caused by deliberate actions undertaken by himself or those under his instruction.”
Any residents who would like to speak at the hearing are asked to email planning.applications@brighton-hove.gov.uk, stating the appeal number, your name, email address and your status within the context of the appeal, i.e. interested party.
The appeal against the change of use is APP/Q1445/W/24/3344381 and the appeal against the conditions on the renovation approval is APP/Q1445/W/24/3347412.
Yet the rose hill tavern wasn’t viable and look at the success that has been! This isn’t to do with the status of the profitability of the pub or the like.. Its the fact that he illegally removed tiles without planning permission.
He really is trying every single possible way to squirm out of his obligations, it seems. I’ll be glad once he runs out of appeal options, he’s been filibustering for over a year now.
The main needs help I think, he just can’t let it go can he!
And costing himself and the council all sorts of legal and other costs.
I think vanity and arrogance are strong within this specimen.
He’ll go bankrupt before he backs down, simply because his narcissism is his main driving force.
I hope it comes around quickly, the pub gains other owners, and it all works out happily and becomes a huge success – without him. He can go back to being just another shouty man in a polo shirt downing cocktails at Burnt Orange along with all the others of his type.
Isn’t he just very wealthy? This guy is trolling the entire community because a few rabid locals perhaps went too far. As someone who walked past the pub for 20 years it was completely unnecessary vandalism and this guy needs to just stop trying to win as he’s actually just being nasty and vindictive at this point. Karma will catch up with you mate. Do the right thing… It’s cheaper than paying all these solicitor fees (probably got a solicitor egging him on laughing at him behind his back)
Yeah, owns a Video Production company called Dragonfly. His latest financials look healthy https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07559359/filing-history/MzM5OTI4MTc2OWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
Yes and he doesn’t pay some of his freelancers or makes them wait months and years for the money they are owed. I know several photographers that have never been paid for commission they undertook from him. This is why his business looks healthy.
He knew what he was doing when he maliciously vandalised the pub council must stick to their guns make him restore the tiles to that wonderful pub
Its time to start jailing heritage vandals like him with confiscation of the property. End of. They won’t stop til we look like Croydon.
Narcissists hate losing, even if logical though would be to put it back how it was, sell it and just move on with his life he must must must persist in the fruitless arguments with the council, because how dare anyone say no to him…. What a berk
I walk past this mess everyday. Makes me sad. Why won’t he just go away?
I live in Southover Street and been there 30 years and used the pub regularly my mum was a barmaid and in the darts team. It’s a shame it closed down but the brewery let it go and it was really shabby inside. Too many pubs close by for it to work as a pub again but whatever it is it should be fully restored to it’s former glory as every local person has a connection with it and fond memories. I’d like a house with the exterior of a pub it’s quirky and cool.
Oh ffs not this again.
Big Spoilt sociopathic teenager throwing a strop because he can’t get his own way.
Grow up and act you age! Not your shoe size.
Well, the tiles were in a very bad condition.
Furthermore, the pub was dirty and smelly. Just few people used to go there.
I do not think that the owner knew that the building was a listed one. He is trying is best to do something nice. He is a business man and He is going to spend a lot of money for it. I do not understand why many people are against him.
The titles were also worth a lot of money, and will likely cost a lot to restore.