A wine bar cannot keep its boundary fence or fit a retractable canopy after councillors unanimously refused a planning application.
It was the fifth application to make changes at the back of Paris Wine Bar, in Church Road, Hove, which is in a grade II listed building in The Avenues Conservation Area.
Brighton and Hove City Council has turned down four previous applications to extend the building at the rear – in 2012, 2013, 2019 and 2020 – because of the historic nature of the building.
On Wednesday (5 March) the council’s Planning Committee unanimously refused permission for the boundary fence and the retractable canopy because of the harm to the historic significance of the grade II listed terrace and conservation areas.
A report said that the canopy and fence would remove the open rear garden and yard area and introduce an “alien, incongruous structure”.
Bar owner Elvis Kiri, 39, was issued with a listed building enforcement notice in 2022 for a timber rear extension with a canopy roof.
His planning agent, Courtney Darby, described the application as a “fully reversable” lightweight addition to the building.
He dismissed the heritage team’s concerns about the proposals, saying that they would not be visible from the wider conservation area.
Mr Darby said that, across the wider terrace, several buildings had been extended in the shadow of the council’s brutalist concrete car park opposite Hove Town Hall.
He said: “The proposal is located in a service area, which includes a backdrop of a multi-storey brutalist car park, a white multi-storey sawtooth roofed extension, among other extensions on the same terrace, refuse bins, an electricity substation and extraction shafts.”
Councillors were told that other harmful developments in the area did not set a precedent and did not justify any “further erosion” of the conservation area and the resulted loss of significance of the listed building.
Labour councillor Joy Robinson said: “I know this business and I understand why they need the space because the inside area is quite small.
“But you just can’t run rough-shod over policy – and pre-planning advice was given and it seems to have been ignored.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey said: “We cannot allow an incremental erosion of our conservation terms.
“It sounds like they’ve had plenty of advice to come back with something that meets the stipulations of heritage and our officers.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said: “Perhaps parasols and heaters are the way to go instead of this. It’s a bit unsightly to have a tent effort over the top.”
In the last sentence, what is a “tent effort”?
Brighton planners are a disgrace not letting the application have a look all over Brighton and you will see see listed buildings given permission for eyesores full frontal eyesight .
This application is not seen or obtrusive to anyone, what are the real reasons for refusal??.
“Pre-planning advice was given and it seems to have been ignored.”
Exactly, sounds like the council is taking a petty stance because someone has the temerity to challenge them!
The whole area is blighted but hideous buildings, not least the town hall, the car park and that awful Tesco! Presumably all those got permission…?
No real planing advice was given!! They just wanted how it was before?!
Just a big lie from the council to cover their own mess
It’s wonderful how BHC can objct to this but allow VG3 and a bus lane go ahead after consultation and residents soy no .
It’s obvious whose palm is being rubbed .
Not even remotely comparable though, David.
Better a boarded up building and people signing on then, council are living in the past . Patio heaters really?
Ignoring advice, inappropriate structures in a conservation area. Go somewhere else then! Too many of these bars, restaurants etc are popping up and adding their own extensions without the proper permissions. If BHCC could just get rid of those who flout regulations, take them to court, then Hove would be better off both financially and aesthetically. In the end the tax payers will take the brunt and fat cats (bar owners and BHCC bosses will benefit).
They’ve been attempting to create structures since at least 2012. However you want to view it. Ring nearer to a decade and a half than a decade is, objectively, not a business that has “popped up”. You also couldn’t accuse them of ignoring process or rules. The only time they’ve been issued a compliance order was in ’22 and linked to a temporary structure ( exposed, non adjoining, timber construction) which Imho should’ve qualified for assessment based on such elements.
As for “just move then”. Flippancy aside. They’ve clearly got a viable business and customer base that would be jeopardized by doing so. BHCC & Police are well known for fighting against & trying to stop licensed premises across broad swathes of the city meaning even if they wanted to it may be an impossibility. Lastly. They shouldn’t have to and if they were to do so & set up shop by your home would you be so ready to hear them or the community to suggest you “just move then”?!
Whilst ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. The council have blame for failing in their duty to enforce fairly and consistently if they’ve allowed other properties to do similar works & have again failed to act fairly by not issuing others with equivalent orders inline with their refusal reasoning in the case. On tha t Basis alone the requirement for appeal to a higher body has been met.
IF it’s true that, formal & qualified ( important distinction ‘s) were ignored then that’s not helpful to their case unless it can be justified but as I’ve not seen evidence proving such myself I can only comment on others assertions.