A restaurant owner is disappointed that he cannot keep the glazed extension to the front of his premises after a planning appeal was dismissed.
Ali Shokouhfar, 44, installed a glass extension in front of his business, La Tana, in Ladies Mile Road, Patcham, in April without planning permission because he was unaware that he needed it.
Once alerted, he submitted a planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council eight months ago, in May.
But planning officials refused permission in July saying that the extension was an “over-sized incongruous addition” which did not relate to the building and “detracts” from the appearance of the shopping area.
They also said that structural details were omitted from the application which meant that there was no information matters such as about sound insulation.
The application was decided by officials and did not go before the Planning Committee which is made up of elected councillors.
Scores of supporters wrote to the Planning Inspectorate to say that the restaurant was popular and the extension was useful.
Mr Shokouhfar submitted an appeal statement prepared by his agent, Wilbury Planning, which said that he would have applied for planning permission in advance if he had realised that it was necessary.
Appeal documents said that heavy planters had provided an informal seated area outside the restaurant for almost 10 years – from 2015 until last year.
Mr Shokouhfar’s appeal statement said: “For a significant period of time there had already been a protrusion to the front of the property.
“The existing structure merely comprises an enclosed and fully glazed structure with only a slightly larger footprint when compared to the previous external seating area.”
Planning inspector David Reed said that the conservatory-style extension stuck out further, going beyond the area covered by the planters.
Mr Reed said: “The extension provides additional all-year-round seating which enhances the restaurant business and provides economic benefits.
“However, these factors are outweighed by the visual impact on the street scene and the associated conflict with the development plan.”
Mr Shokouhfar was disappointed with the decision. He said: “We had lots of good comments regarding the extension. Everyone in Patcham loves it.
“This extension also has many benefits, more customers, more revenue, more visitors to Patcham as many travel to come here and many more positive things.”
Mr Shokouhfar needs to obey the rules. So many restaurant owners in the City seem to believe they are free to do what they wish.
“Ali Shokouhfar, 44, installed a glass extension in front of his business, La Tana, in Ladies Mile Road, Patcham, in April without planning permission because he was unaware that he needed it.”
What a load of BULL……
The owner trying it on. Should be fined as well as having to take it down.
There are two similar cases pending on Church Road in Hove.
Do you mean Nayeb and Nayeb 2? Talk about arrogance, to be told by the council to take down one illegally built glass structure, to ignore them and to buy the premises two doors down and do exactly the same thing.
Yes, that is the one.
I wonder who actually owns that part of the pavement. Another eatery, the other side of the crossroads has outside tables and screen but not a building. Down in the Old London Road the pavement is used for goods display and parking by a few businesses.
The “other eatery “ the cafe on the next parade of shops has the same owner.
It’s likely that it is part of the property. Were it not, and were it on Public Highway it would have to go, Planning Permission or not, without Highway permission.
Many areas in front of shops in Brighton & Hove, even when they look the same as the public footway, are actually private land.
I personally think it makes the whole restaurant more appealing, it opens up the inside which at times could be quite crowded, the conservatory is a nice place to sit and enjoy your meal , such a shame it has to go .
Perhaps if he had put in a proper planning application before doing anything the result might have been different?
It’s pretty ugly to be fair.
Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you can break the law.
I wonder when Nayeb will pull down their monstrosity?
As someone who lives in Patcham and has frequented the restaurant it is an undeniable eyesore to the street. It’s inconceivable that the owner did not know planning was required and it is clear and obvious to all that it is a larger area out towards the bus stop than was previously the case.
It has been built for sheer profit, so to suggest it thereby brings benefit to the area is nonsense.
Totally agree. I see that they have now re submitted the application.
the owner has now appealed against the original appeal that was dismissed! https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3368540
The owner is either very naive or or he is ignorant, in either case he doesn’t come out of it well!
Perhaps the restaurant owners are originally from countries were there are few rules about what is acceptable.
This Patcham restaurant, two on Church Road and a chippy on Preston Street have so far failed seek permission for changes and all have failed to remove the offending adaptions. See a bit of a pattern here?
While clearly this is an infringement of planning rules it is exactly cases like this that show why planning rules have to change. This is a thriving enterprising business which brings something to the area both in terms of employment and amenity to the area. They have put a shelter on their land to provide cover for their customers all year round. If we want economic growth we need to rethink this.
and what it everyone in the parade did the same? It would ruin it.
With the prices this place charges, I’m surprised it is not made from solid gold !
What are the rules and tables and chairs on the pavement I wonder? In hove, right through winter, there are restaurants that have so many tables and chairs or on the pavement that it’s difficult to get past. Perhaps it’s worth an article Sarah.
Tables and chairs on pavements come under licensing not planning
The applicant has resubmitted the application with ‘greenary’ growing over the extension in the attempt to get it approved, despite it previous being refused and dismissed on appeal!!!
If I grow a plant over my proposed extension that got turned down for a whole list of reasons, will it now get passed as well?