The council has launched a prosecution of a pub owner who has failed to replace the distinctive green tiles he ripped off its exterior.
Charles Southall was ordered to put back the tiles on the Montreal Arms, which he bought in 2022 via his company Dragonfly Architectural Services.
The council issued a stop notice within hours of the tiles being removed in March that year, followed by an enforcement notice requiring they be replaced the following month.
But after a series of appeals and planning applications, no work has been carried out.
Today, Brighton and Hove City Council said they had official started proceedings against the owner of the pub.
Councillor Tim Rowkins, in whose Hanover ward the pub sits, said: “I appreciate progress has appeared slow on this, but we have been limited in what we’ve been able to say publicly so as not to jeopardise the legal process.
“However, I can now confirm that the council has filed a summons with the court to prosecute the owner for the failure to comply with the enforcement notice relating to the reinstatement of the tiles.
“The next step will be for the court to issue the summons and fix a date for the first hearing.
“I’ll update as and when I can, but I do want to thank everyone for their patience. I walk past it regularly myself and we all want to see it put right.”
One of the pub’s neighbours, Ken Frost, has been pushing for action since the tiles were first damaged.
He even set up a website counting the days since the enforcement notice’s deadline eventually came into force but had not been complied with.
Today, he welcomed the news. He said: “Excellent news, and about time. Let justice be served.”
Earlier this year, the pub was put up for sale for £425,000 – slightly more than Mr Southall bought it for.
Brighton and Hove News understands an open day is being held for viewings next week.
Company accounts filed for Dragonfly Architectural Services say the enforcement action and its registration as an asset of community value (ACV) have lowered its value to an estimated £150,000.
Brighton and Hove City Council have 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.
Finally – so say the council have dragged their feet is an understatement! Also sounds like the council are only taking action on the tiles, can’t see them say anything about the condition of the building, which even from the untrained eye looks dangerous!!
The council is dependent on court deadlines which includes the right of appeal and time to follow court orders and enforcement orders.
Once the deadline for those passes only then can the council instigate further action – which is now doing,
If anyone has been dragging this out it’s Charles Southall.
You’ve missed the point about what I said, why only taking action on the tiles, why are the council not considering action against the dangerous disrepair. The place is hazardous and if the owner is neglecting their responsibilities and the building is unsafe, they should be taking action on that as well.
And the council’s announcement about starting proceedings is nothing to do with court delays. Sure, court delays might mean it will take time for the case to be heard, but delays have zero to do with the council deciding to initiate proceedings and decide to take action.
I get the desire to legally attack from multiple points, but I don’t think it’d make a blind bit of difference in this case when you think of what you ere trying to achieve with such a notion, compared to what is already happening.
It’s not action for actions sake I’m talking about Benjamin, if a building is unsafe and the owner refuses to address issues which could impact public safety, the council should act, not just leave it up to the owner and cross their fingers that no passersby will be hit by falling masonry or worse.
The tile enforcement is a visual thing to do with the owner ripping off the external features connected to the building’s heritage. The other side of enforcement I mean is different and about public safety and enforcement. Which I think is a valid concern based on the state of the building.
You’re absolutely right about a duty to protect.
Happy to be corrected on this, but as I understand it, and what is being reported, there are no immediate concerns to public safety. If that changes though, I think robust action would need to be taken, but I suspect that’d look more like a CPO at a greatly reduced rate.
Mate it’s Hanover. Your whole area is filled with druggies and students oh and the level. As I said in a previous comment, if you guys feel so strongly then make a little group together and then you can all pay for the building and stare at green tiles all day
Wibble.
This joker has been taking the mick for long enough. Time to make an example of him and give him a fine, the scale of which sends a message to all other would-be architectural vandals. What about a compulsory purchase by the council where the fine actually cancels out the purchase price?
Can’t see anyone buying this building of community excellence . Except the Council which has no business sense whatsoever.
ACV. No, I don’t either. Pubs don’t fare too well as community buildings, and pub businesses have been shutting down at a rapid rate.
Oh wow you’re really getting all watery eyed over a building, of which you don’t own nor have any moral say in what gets done with it. It’s literally some green tiles on an old building that needs updating and brought into modern and safe standards and not just left looking the way you want it to just because you like the look of it. It’s in Hanover and that whole area is just students and druggies ha ha
If you all care so much then why don’t you all make a little group and then club together and purchase the property so then you can all stare at green tiles all day but then let’s be fair, none of you will as you’re all just semi professional online complainers that would argue the colour of the sky if you could..
You OK, Rob?
Rob, or really charle, mate… The point is you can’t go around smashing up heritage, to make a few quid and when caught out, then try and play a legal game of BS planning applications, instead of just admitting you made a major mistake and just repairing the damage.
Narcissism at it’s finest here. You made a mistake but don’t fix it because you can’t loose face. pathetic
Not “just green titles” though, is it? Rate it is going, Charlie is going to lose the property completely, and not a penny needs to be spent by anyone.
Maybe he just wants the site and the whole point was to vandalise and destabilise the building and have the locals eventually grateful and even begging for a solution, any solution, however ugly and blocky, to a derelict eyesore in their neighbourhood. Standard playbook stuff for unscrupulous developers. ‘Mysterious fire’ next?
Demolition by neglect? Maybe. Feels like a losing strategy to me though. Could be forced into a CPO, with fines and repairs baked into the sale price, which could result in Charlie getting very little back from this misadventure.
CPO isn’t a bad idea in principle. I think if they did go that way, it’d be really legal complex, and really expensive to fight, plus considering Charlie as a bit of a proven scumbag, he’d make it as difficult as possible.
I’m not sure the advantages would outweigh in this case, but it is certainly an option.
Proven scumbag ? Care to enlighten us all or are you just making rubbish up
Certainly. See the whole history of this particular building since Charlie purchased it. Multiple attempts to circumvent and ignore legislative and regulatory requirements. Very comprehensively covered by this news outlet.
One sided article like it has been throughout. From what I have heard the owner has tried to do the place up and make something of it as when he purchased it the building was falling to bits. Now because of some wonderful tiles being taken off the locals , who never even drunk in the pub, kicked up a stink and stopped it all
Removing tiles that the previous owners, Stonegate, applied to do, then withdrew because of this same backlash?
So Mr. Nephew, Charlie is either not very smart, or he thinks he is above the law. Which one?
Mr nephew weird comment, was for the tiles you do realise that the tiles were mostly broken before being removed. They were shocking 15 years ago
Rowkins and his invisible Labour ward colleagues have done a terrible job at keeping local residents in the loop about what the council is(n’t) doing. His excuse that he had to keep quiet due to the court case is laughable, as he was just as quiet on this issue before the case. It’s not just about the tiles, but a deeply unsavoury property developer who has deliberately caused this property to become a dangerous ruin.
Pretty standard practice across the world to not talk about ongoing proceedings, Tom.
Good the owner thinks the problem will go away, he must replace them. Also the council need to start court cases against itself the the listed structure it owns that are falling apart.
Why would anyone start a legal case against themselves? That’s nonsensical.
Ah, the middle class DFLs of Hanover still crying about that pub that they never even drank in. Where’s my popcorn
Exactly that my auntie used to run the pub, always empty hence why it shut down. Now because of some stupid green tiles all the locals come out of the woodwork. Where were they all years ago
It’s a shame that everything that doesn’t move is a target for the unwashed scum taggers