A restaurant owner has made a fresh attempt to obtain planning permission for a glass extension which was refused on appeal.
Ali Shokouhfar, 44, has gained support from more than 60 people for the extension to the front of his business, La Tana, in Ladies Mile Road, Patcham.
Brighton and Hove City Council refused retrospective planning permission for the extension last July. Mr Shokouhfar appealed but last month a government planning inspector ruled against him.
In a new application, Mr Shokouhfar has proposed planters on either side of the extension, described as “soft landscaping”.
The application, prepared by Mr Shokouhfar’s agent Wilbury Planning, said that the adjustments addressed the planning inspector’s concerns that the extension “causes harm to the character and appearance of the street scene”.
The application included a design statement which said: “Provision of suitable mature planting will be planted within the planter on top of the structure and will drape down over the principal elevation of the structure.
“The proposed soft landscaping will soften the appearance of the existing structure within the street scene.”
Mr Shokouhfar said: “This time we have added plants around the extension and also plants on the roof to make it more pleasant and match to the green field.”
The latest application had 64 supporting comments at the time of writing and five objections.
An anonymous supporter, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “The structure works well with the restaurant and surrounding area.
“It does look slightly different but as far as we are aware it has not gone out of the footprint of the restaurant and building. The lighting actually looks very good and not too much.”
Another anonymous supporter, whose details were also redacted, said: “The La Tana extension is not oversized. Fits in well with the surroundings.
“Insulation is sufficient to prevent nuisance or disturbance to adjoining and neighbouring occupiers. It enhances the character and appearance of the street.”
An anonymous objector, whose details were also redacted, said: “Simply by placing a pot plant on the left side, which clearly shows on the plan is on the neighbouring property number 45, and by putting one on the right restricting the right of way to the properties at the rear, does not address any of the reasons set out for the refusal of the first application.”
Another anonymous objector said: “The extension is too large. While it might be within the restaurant’s boundary and plot it still feels like over-development.
“If every shop along the parade built out to the same point the street scape look and feel would be quite different from what it is today.”
The application was due to have been decided by today (Monday 27 January). It can be found on the planning portal on the council’s website by searching for BH2024/03090.
has HMRC checked the validity of his accounts as well? Everything else above board? As someone that makes such rash gambling risks without checking the rules of the country wouldn’t dream of cutting corners elsewhere. ridiculously arrogant – get rid of it and fine him into debt. otherwise – there are no rules, let’s have a free for all. Im happy with that, lets just be fair about.
What happened to being kind to people , putting him into debt and all that?
Poor man just wanted to make people happy and he only seemed to make a less that 15 people upset .
Get a grip. The extension was brilliant and looked great .
A man who needs to learn to obey the rules and remove his unwelcome extension. There are other restaurant owners on Church Street Hove and Preston Street who also believe that they can do what ever they wish. Lets hope the Council forces the removal of all.
So what! What is the actual issue ?
Let businesses succeed , some people just don’t like it do they , such as you!
I see no harm at all in extensions ! As long as it is not in the way and done right .
Just pure jealousy in these comments
” .. and done right”
Jodie the problem here is that he didn’t do it ‘right’
He built the extension BEFORE getting planning permission.
That’s not doign it right is it?
The planning rules are there for the benefit of all.
It’s a shame he’s hardworking and trying to improve his business but
If he’d applied for permission in the first place, he’d have saved himself a lot of time and money.
They don’t have the same rules in his country which is one of the reasons many of them come to the UK.
You can’t just go ahead and build what you like – Imagine the state of the place if you could.
Is this guy for real? He submits basically the same application that has already been turned down twice but with the addition of some plants and expects the council just to agree?
But the council did decline to determine the application as
“This due to the fact that the works detailed in the above application are very similar to those which have already been refused (BH2024/01208) and dismissed at appeal (APP/Q1445/W/24/3349993) by the Secretary of State when they reviewed the decision of the Local Planning Authority. The proposals include the protruding structure which is discussed in the Inspector’s decision and this part the proposal is to be retained unchanged.”
“The inclusion of planters to the side and atop of the structure for which part-retrospective planning permission is sought is a change of limited scope that does not fundamentally alter the substance of the scheme.”
https://planningapps.brighton-hove.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1C1AC887644B8884A3C1A5B11E53C2D8/pdf/BH2024_03090-SECTION_70A_LETTER_TO_PLANNING_AGENT-20042009.pdf
Still standing despite being refused and appeal rejected. Enforecement order also seems to have been ignored.
Remove it!
His plant pots would be outside of HIS boundary, why agree to anything he states.
I’ve visited this place, and here’s my take. This is a real and genuine family business. Not a chain, not a speculator, but a business run by from what I have observed is a friendly, respectful and hard-working family.
They also have a coffee shop up the road, which is always busy. Busy with retired folk happily passing the time, busy with friends, parents with kids, builders, you name it. What is common is that everyone is welcome and is severed with a smile.
This is why their application has had so much support.
This restaurant and their coffee shop is at the heart of a community, in Patcham. This is what high streets used to be and what it seems, many people yearn to come back.
So, I say cut this family some slack and support this application. The extension (and the restaurant) looks absolutely fantastic in person (I urge you to visit and see for yourself).
They must have spent a fortune and it looks great. They are providing jobs and investing in their community. Can you imagine the alternative? (that’s rhetorical, as you don’t have to look far to see the effects of neglected high streets and parades everywhere).
The question needs to be asked, why are some people so against this?
The question presents, what will he do with the coffee shop.
He knew he would need planning permission. He knew he would not get it so he built it anyway. He is playing on sentimentality to push it through. . It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the council let him run the street, we will see another glass cube occupying the area outside of his coffee shop within a few months also.
Highly undesirable, just because his greed outweighs his need to adhere to due procedure.
Yep. https://publicaccess.brighton-hove.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=TANKQ6DMJQ900