Anyone buying a pub whose green tiles have been ripped off will be subject to an order to restore them – and could be taken to court if they don’t, the council has warned.
For Sale boards appeared on the Montreal Arms last week after owner Charlie Southall put it on the market – almost three years to the day after he hired friends to hack off its distinctive green tiles.
Weeks later, an enforcement notice was served requiring him to replace them like for like – an order upheld on appeal which he was given until July last year to comply with.
Agents Savills told Brighton and Hove News Mr Southall is asking for offers in excess of £425,000. Land Registry records show his company Dragonfly Architectural Services Limited bought it for £420,000 in March 2022.
Company accounts filed since then say the enforcement action and its registration as an asset of community value (ACV) have lowered its value to an estimated £150,000.
This week, Brighton and Hove City Council said if the work was not carried out, it would seek to prosecute the owner – whether that is Mr Southall or a new buyer who also fails to restore the tiles.
It also said Mr Southall had informed them the pub was going on the market in December, which he is required to do under the terms of the ACV listing.
It said it had informed the group which applied for the ACV listing, the Friends of the Montreal Arms, which had the chance to request a six-month moratorium on the sale to give it time to raise money to put in its own offer. No expressions of interest have been made.
Councillor Liz Loughran, chair of the planning committee, said: “There is a current enforcement notice still in place on this property.
“Prosecution runs with the land, so if this work is not carried out, the council will seek to prosecute the current owner or, if the property is sold, the buyer will be contacted with a view to ensuring they will comply with the notice or to warn them that they may face prosecution.
“This is a much-loved local building, and we know how strongly residents feel about this issue. We will continue to take every step necessary to make sure it is restored.”
Mr Southall bought the pub “on a whim” after putting an offer in early 2022. The sale completed shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, and he launched a crowdfunder to refurbish it so it could be used as a refuge for Ukranian women and children.
He told Brighton and Hove News he intended to keep the tiles, which had been under threat from the previous owners, the pub company Stonegate.
But after neighbours questioned the motives, he abandoned the crowdfunder and days later the tiles were under attack. He distributed leaflets saying removing the tiles was necessary to make essential repairs to the building.
“Buy my building, it comes with a free prosecution!”
Good luck with that Charlie.
That will be on the market for decades !
Some people really just ask for it don’t they. That’ll learn ya Charlie!
I rather fancy there will be no takers. What sort of person rips off the tiles and expects to make 5 grand on the deal whilst expecting the new owners to pay for his vandalism. Good luck with that!
I am confused, but admittedly it doesn’t take much! The residents of the local area care so deeply about the type of tiles on someone else’s property that they’d rather let this building go to ruin, as opposed to be refurbished with some other type of exterior? Isn’t it the owners choice what colour he wants his tiles? Or whether he wants tiles at all? As it’s listed as freehold, not leasehold? No one is going to buy it when they are then to be prosecuted. So this is just going to sit here and he left to ruin. What an eye sore. Sums up most of Brighton.
He’ll be forced to make good on the property, so it won’t stay like that for long. I think there is a principle of the matter too that we’re keen on seeing karma play out.
Oh dear – you’re easily confused, it seems. The building is obviously listed and its outward appearance subject to restrictions to keep it in harmony with its local surroundings. The owner would hve known all this when he bought it and obviously assumed that if he defaced the building badly enough the council would cave, withdraw the listing and allow it to be demolished. Props to the council for sticking to their guns; planning committees decide on these matters, not individual property owners; we’re not living in some sort of environmental wild west ruled by bullies. Is that really too hard for you to understand?
I hate seeing property vacant but Charlie deserves every bit of being stuck with it till it’s turned back to what it was (at minimum the facade
Some mothers do have em!
The council said this and the council said that,just put this story to bed now,jesus wept,brighton and hove council, get up off your arses get him to court and stop going on and on.