The council acted unreasonably in refusing to allow a developer to remove green tiles from his pub before restoring them, a planning inspector has ruled.
Brighton and Hove City Council will now have to pay Charlie Southall’s legal costs in appealing its refusal to approve his plans to renovate the Montreal Arms.
Mr Southall ripped off half the pub’s Victorian tiles in 2023, and is currently being prosecuted for failing to comply with an enforcement notice requiring him to reinstate them. He has pleaded not guilty and opted for a jury trial.
Planning inspector Paul Burley has now approved Mr Southall’s plan to remove all the remaining tiles ahead of a full renovation.
In his ruling awarding costs to Mr Southall, Mr Burley said: “The council has said that the applicant was advised that approval for all of the tiles to be removed would likely not be supported without an independent survey of the structure, commissioned by the council, at the applicant’s cost.
“It has said that the appellant initially agreed to this but then declined to make payment. The council has also noted that in respect of the appeal application it repeatedly requested further expertly assessed information from the applicant.
“However, nowhere in the information before me is there an explanation as to why the council considered information that was provided by the applicant to be inadequate or could not be relied upon, or that the author of that work was not sufficiently qualified or experienced.
“Furthermore, I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the council explained to the applicant the type and extent of additional information that would have satisfied it and resulted in a decision being made.”
Notwithstanding that I concluded that the submitted information is adequate, I find it unreasonable for the council to maintain that insufficient information had been provided when it had not clearly explained why it considered the submitted information to be inadequate and the extent of additional work that would have satisfied it.
“Had a clear justification and explanation been provided, an appeal could have been avoided altogether, or the issues to be considered could have been narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated with the appeal.”
In the appeal ruling itself, Mr Burley said: “Whilst the removal of all tiles would cause some harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), principally due to the loss of historic intactness, I do not find the removal of all the existing tiles prior to other works taking place, followed by a programme of tiling reinstatement, would undermine the rationale or reasons for listing.
“It is clear that the future of the asset as a whole, which is currently not suitable for habitation, depends on extensive interventions, and the overall approach suggested by the appellant appears to present a means by which a long-term future for the host building can be secured, thus also ensuring that the NDHA’s architectural, design and artistic interest, as well as its positive contribution to the street scene, will endure.
“Overall, whilst there may be some harm to the significance of the NDHA, I find this to be a very small degree of harm.
“However, the desirability of securing the longer term future of the NDHA is a consideration which outweighs the harm that I have identified.
“Although the council has referred to enforcement proceedings in respect of the appeal site, has said that unlawful works have previously taken place, and that the current condition of the appeal site has in part been caused by deliberate actions, none of these relate to the merits of the approach to works proposed by the appellant pursuant to the relevant conditions.
“Therefore, these are not matters that I can take into consideration in determining those conditions.
“Suggestions have also been made in respect of the appellant’s motivations for pursuing the approach set out in the appeal application. However, in the absence of any evidence in that regard, it is not a matter to which I attach any weight.”
Mr Southall ripped off the tiles in March 2022, and an enforcement notice was issued days later in April 2022.
He submitted plans to renovate the pub and its tiled exterior in 2024, which were approved with a number of conditions.
The plan to remove the tiles was submitted to the council in February this year, as part of an application to approve details to satisfy some of those conditions.
The council failed to determine the application within the statutory deadline, allowing him to appeal. In its response to the appeal, the council said it would have refused the application because not enough expert information was submitted to support it.
Another application to vary the conditions was submitted in June this year, and refused on the same basis. This is also being appealed.
Mr Southall is next due in court in January for legal argument. The trial has provisionally been scheduled before a jury in November 2026.
The council has been approached for comment.
The council should appeal this appeal tbh, 2 can play the idiot game
rolandbryans1@gmail.com
Clueless
There would have to be a misinterpretation of law by the inspectorate, or an unreasonable decision made. That’s not the case here. There’s no second chance to go back and provide additional evidence, unfortunately.
That’s not how planning appeals work. Our planning department is notorious among the planning inspectorate. It is understaffed and needs better funding and training.
What an appalling decision.
Has this turned into a battle about who can afford the better lawyers?
An error of judgment by BHCC?
Not an error just not doing there job properly typical brighton council
Procedural error.
Hahaha truth has finally come out. False journalism and uneducated comments.wheres mr benjamin tonight
No doubt on his way, but the council should have considered the plan of re-instating the tiles, that part was missed out on many points mainly by the media monkeys working for god knows who.
The council did consider reinstatement. It is literally the basis of the enforcement notice and the 2024 approval that required the tiles to be restored. The question in this appeal wasn’t whether reinstatement should happen, but whether the applicant had submitted enough evidence to justify removing the remaining tiles first. The inspector ruled that the council hadn’t clearly explained the evidential standard required, which is a procedural issue.
Completely untrue jo. So much is missing from this article just like every other article but it will all becone clear in next few months
…apart from the literal wording of the inspectorate, which anyone can read. Looks a you’re coming up with a lot of vague insinuation without substance.
” literal wording of the inspectorate ” according to who the journalist who wrote this or are you finally admiting you are Jo
What a strange thing to say. According to the inspector’s published decision, which is publicly available here: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3369410&CoID=0
The facts are set out clearly. Anyone reading it can see what was actually decided.
Have you asked yourself why it has got to this stage, why wouldnt the local counvil refuse to look at the structual report of the building, why did the local council refuse to look at the plans from Mr southall regarding what to do to the place. Any reports of this in the 50000 articles wrote about him .. no !
Wow ben how do you know them documents are that quick if you werent being fed information about this case or are you JO !
Actually, according to the Inspectorate decision, the Council did ask for structural/expert information and the requirement for reinstatement of the tiles was built into the enforcement notice. What the Inspector found unreasonable was that the Council did not clearly explain its expectations for the submitted evidence.
And Hanover, if you’re asking me “How do I know where those documents are so quickly?” – there’s a case search portal for the inspectorate online you can use. Super convenient. I had also predicted it was going to come up in the course of this conversation.
Oh benny ben or sorry jo,no plans were looked at hence why it has got to this stage and why Mr Southall stuck to his guns and took it this far. At the end of the day at least now he can get on with the worth take the rest of them horrible tiles off and make the building look good at last
Actually, according to the Inspectorate decision, the Council did ask for structural/expert information and the requirement for reinstatement of the tiles was built into the enforcement notice.
Ask and I shall appear!
You’re still wrong about false journalism. The simple reality is that the council lost this appeal on process rather than principle. The department said the applicant’s evidence wasn’t good enough, but couldn’t show that they had ever explained why, or what additional survey detail or qualifications they expected. That lack of clarity is what cost them the appeal, and I’d hope some questions are asked internally because this is becoming a worrying pattern, and they really shouldn’t have had this appeal upheld.
For context, the inspector was legally required to ignore past misconduct. Enforcement history and motivations cannot be considered when deciding whether a set of conditions has been met. That doesn’t mean those earlier actions were acceptable, only that they weren’t relevant to this narrow technical question.
For everyone else watching this unfold, it’s still obvious that Charlie has spent over a year trying to avoid or delay his obligations. This decision doesn’t change that. Any costs he has just won will almost certainly be offset by the much larger obligations that remain. All he has gained is a bit of temporary – and undeserved – financial relief, not an escape route.
Good evening jo
Can all the Benjamins please stand up .
There apparently is more than one sharing the same name. You can Google it
Wasn’t me
I prefer Boring Benjy
Attack Poodle will remain my favourite.
At last common sense, get rest of those tiles off and get new green ones on. This who saga has gone on long enough. Now council tax payers foot the bill
Pretty sure Charlie owes more net when you add it up.
Pretty sure you jo are obsessed with him
Pretty keen on seeing Charlie meet karmic justice for his vandalism and gerrymandering of his legal obligations, certainly. Not sure how that is a relevant point though; just sounds like you’ve got nothing substantive to add beyond childish remarks, unfortunately.
How is it vandalism when he is removing ” BROKEN TILES ” from a broken building jesus you really are clueless