The owner of a Brighton pub has made two fresh bids to remove all its original green tiles.
Charlie Southall is due to stand trial for failing to comply with a enforcement notice to restore the tiled facade of the Montreal Arms in Hanover.
In the meantime, he is appealing the council’s refusal of an application to remove all the tiles and replace with replicas.
And he has also applied for a certificate to say the enforcement notice is now invalid because it’s impossible to both comply with it and to implement his approved scheme to restore the tiles.
Brighton and Hove City Council refused his application, made in June, to remove two conditions on his application to restore the tiles which was approved the previous year.
The first says details of how the tiles are being restores need to be agreed in writing by the council, and the second said all intact tiles should be kept unless the council agrees.
The application, written by Mr Southall’s wife Viktorija Garskaite, said expert advice proved the conditions were a barrier to development.
In its decision, issued in September, the council said: “No new information or reports from any professionally qualified surveyor or heritage surveyors have been submitted as part of the application, just repeats of the those which were considered as part of the approved application.
“Statements have been made by the applicant stating that the condition of the property and the proposed works mean that only removal of all the existing tiles would allow the works to be implemented, which are noted, but not substantiated in any of the previously submitted or current reports from professionally qualified persons.
“The LPA has repeatedly requested further expertly assessed information from the applicant be supplied to justify why the variation of the conditions in the manner in which suggested is needed, and why any material considerations have altered from that previously considered which supported the rationale for the conditions being imposed in the manner they were. The applicant has refused to supply any additional expertly assessed information.”
Mr Southall lodged an appeal against the refusal this month.
His new application argues the enforcement notice, which was issued in 2022 and varied and upheld on appeal in 2023, has ceased to have effect because it is inconsistent with the planning permission granted in 2024.
It says the fact the notice requires reinstatement of the tiles is inconsistent with the planning permission granting further tile removal and phased reinstatement.
It says: “Inconsistency identified. The enforcement notice requires full reinstatement by 17 July 2024.
“The planning permission lawfully authorises works including tile removal and façade alterations, and allows commencement at any time up to 6 June 2027.
“It is impossible to comply with both simultaneously.”
Architectural vandal needs lessons in legality. Submissions can be sent to the addresses cited on Companies House Register.
What a paper-thin argument. The permission clearly allows careful removal of tiles for restoration, not carte blanche to strip the façade bare. After years of evasions, it’s time for Charlie to face accountability – through fines, injunctions, or direct action. His continued contempt for them is clear.
G sake might as well pull the whole pub down what an eyesaw for residents. Everyone must be fed up
No. That is what this vandal wants.
I own tile shops and this person has just damaged about 10k worth of tiles and defaced a historical building. What a disgrace
Nice try Charlie
Londoner trying to rip off our City. Chuck him out and fine him heavily
Charlie Southall is trying everything possible to waste time and to make the case more complicated – presumably in the hope the council will look at escalating legal costs and back off.
I so hope that our council continue to dig their heels in here, and well done to them so far.
The correct result here would be that he – or any future owner – has to restore the tiles and frontage so that it looks as it did before.
On top of that Southall should be fined, and with all the legal costs to be paid by him.
He’s a proper Charlie.
As it happens, I lived opposite this pub for 30 years. I’m not one for nostalgia, or for keeping things as they were, but newcomers and developers do have to respect the fact that Hanover is a conservation area.
Residents certainly care about the history of the area, and the green tiled pubs are just one example of that heritage.
Prehaps if ” locals” like you had drunk in the pub they wouldnt of had to close its doors and been able to fix all the building issues
Laughable blame-shifting. As if people are obligated to drink somewhere just because it’s local. It’s not the locals fault that you couldn’t run a pub Charlie. That also doesn’t mean the place had to be vandalised the way it did or demolished.
Locals didnt support the pub but moan when it gets sold to be redeveloped lol amd im sure he didnt buy it to re open it as a pub you moron
What has that got to do with some idiot riding roughshod over listed and planning restrictions? – Answer – exactly zero. Stop the blame shifting – it makes you look utterly ridiculous.
Stop trying to wriggle out of your obligations Charlie, and put right the damage YOU caused.
Charlie Southall is a very cute operator. Last time i followed him, he was going to do it up for Ukrainian refugees.. How did that go Charlie?
What is the big deal with the tiles? Looked rubbish before anyway.
Listed element of the building holding historical value and made using a specific technique.
For many on here, reading the comments over the last year, the issue is Charlie’s attempts to circumvent the rules at every opportunity and evade his responsibilities. People are quite rightly annoyed at him for his hubris and keen to see karmic justice.
Any proof of that first line
Yes sir, of course.
The Montreal Arms is a Grade II listed building. The official listing description identifies the green faience tiles on the façade as part of its historic character. Historic England’s database provides the formal listing entry, which confirms the tiles as contributing to the building’s significance.
They’ll have fallen off by the time this gets sorted.
Charlie is a no one trying to make a name for himself,well the general public have plenty of names for him and serves him rite, conservation is a real thing and not to be messed with or trodden on just because U think U know better,how far have U got knowing better,stop being slippery and slimy and put ur wrongs rite,be a man and grow up, accept ur wrong doings,fix it then crawl back under the rock U came from,thank you.
Someone should make a documentary about this saga. How an entrepreneur manages to turn buying a pub into a huge drama which costs him £ thousands and leaves him with an eyesore he has to renovate. At one time he tried to be a hero by making it into a hostel for Ukrainian refugees.
Netflix will be in touch!
Will we get a decade out of this story.
Please get it sorted Charlie, you may then gain a little respect from the people who live in that area. You may also finish up with a bloody great fine and doing a little time at His Majesty’s pleasure! Just do it!
Personally I think green pub tiles are uhly. There are plenty of examples (yuk) elsewhere in Brighton. Brighton needs homes let the building be converted and move on
Your assertions are not supported by evidence. Conversation areas were established to maintain the character of the neighborhood. This thuggish behaviour by this vandal is just unacceptable. Does he think that the Law does not apply to him? Yet you seek to reward his illegal actions. Perhaps you may wish to reflect on your outlook and understand that this is not how civilised society should work?
I have never read so many clueless comments from such a one sided journalist who im sure isnt allowed to allow comments on this subject
Comments only tend to be turned off when reporting could risk contempt of court in an active jury trial, or when there’s a statutory reporting restriction in place. None of that applies here, Charlie.
If im charlie are you jo ? How come if anyone disagrees with the article theyre called charlie ?
Just when they show up only on every Montreal Arms thread with the same tone, same defence of any comments that criticise Charlie for his clear obstructive behaviours, the same disingenuous talking points, and the same insistence that everyone else is clueless or biased. He’s so overwhelmingly in the wrong here, you can see why people draw the parallel.
People will know all the facts soon enough so lets bookmark all these countless articles. When the truth comes out about brighton council and the journalist who writes this nonsense lets chat about it again then
No, let’s avoid deflecting and let’s talk about Charlie’s multiple failings now. Let’s also talk about you claiming one-sided journalism whilst not offering a single thing, subjective or not, to support your claim.
That’s exactly the kind of thing we expect Charlie would say.
One sided story with no facts yet people still believe what is written
The beauty of this saga is that the facts are so tediously documented that his claim collapses under its own weight.
The facts are literally the public documents. The enforcement notice, the appeal decision upholding it, the listed-building entry, and the council’s refusal letter quoted in the article are all matters of record. The only person who hasn’t provided evidence Charlie himself. The council has repeatedly asked him for professionally assessed reports to justify total tile removal, and he’s repeatedly refused.
Oh take your blinkers off, have you seen all the plans that were put forward to the council regarding the future of the building ? Have you seen the structual engineers report regarding how the building was in a state before mr southall even brought it ?
Yes, I have. Which is why I can be confident that his claim collapses under its own weight because the facts are so tediously documented. 🙄
So you have seen all the plans but the council refuse to look at them.haha stop with the lies
Deflection, denial, and accusation – exactly the pattern you’d expect from someone defending an indefensible position, particularly when the facts are so tediously documented, any claim to contrary collapses under its own weight. 🙄
What is your issue? Are you a mate of Charlies per chance?
What is your issue? Are you a mate by any chance?
Solicitors and Barristers love him.
Haha cant wait for your reaction shortly with the next article that comes out from the next ruling
Keep it up Benjamin! Calm and erudite under pressure, exactly the opposite of the wildly flung accusations you’re handling. Don’t know how you manage it – I got as far as that one sentence before I had to self-censor, as I was degenerating to personal attacks. Stick to the facts, and your guns, like the council.