A Brighton pub has been told it has to take down its garden awning by the council.
The Park View in Preston Drove put up the 12 metre wide shelter, known as a goal post awning, in February 2024.
But in April, the awning was spotted by a member of the Brighton Society, which alerted Brighton and Hove Council.
Officers got in touch with the pub telling them they needed planning permission. An application submitted in November was refused, and a subsequent appeal dismissed.
Just before Christmas, the council issued an enforcement notice giving them a month to take it down.
The retrospective application said: “The front customer terrace is integral to the operation of the public house and is increasingly
important to its continued success and viability.
“Its importance will only increase as the licensed sector faces significant increased costs arising from November’s budget (increase in minimum and living wages, increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and loss of business rate tax relief).
“The Park View does not have a rear beer garden, with outdoor seating being limited to the paved terrace fronting Preston Drove. The awning provides shade to the seating area from the sun in the summer months and cover from adverse weather in the winter months.
“It provides a significant benefit to the public house year-round, making it more attractive to customers.”
Four people – all of whose details are redacted on the council’s website so it’s unclear if they are residents or members of the pub’s staff – commented in favour of the plans.
The member of the Brighton Society who alerted the planning department, and whose identity is also redacted, objected.
Most local authorities do not redact the identities of people commenting on planning applications.
Planning inspector Paul Burley said: “I consider the appeal scheme to be particularly harmful when the awning is retracted and the large, linear metal structure is exposed to full view.
“When retracted the purpose of the supporting structure is not readily apparent and it appears as an alien feature in the townscape.
“It is especially harmful when looking north-east from close to the pelican crossing on Preston Drove near the public house; here the structure disrupts the appreciation of an attractive grouping of buildings.
“The appellant has said that the awning allows more of the outdoor space to be in use year-round and that the associated economic benefits make a positive contribution towards the continued viability and success of the public house, which, in turn, secures the jobs that it provides.
“It has also stated that the planning system should afford significant weight to proposals that make a public house more attractive to its customer base and which make a positive contribution towards maintaining the optimal viable use of the property.
“Whilst I attach some weight to the support for the development and the benefits set out by the appellant, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the viability of the public house would be compromised if the awning was removed.”
Despite the planning inspector’s order to remove structure on the pavement outside Nayreb on New Church Road – as reported here – this has not been obeyed.
The member of the Brighton Society should be ashamed of themselves but wouldn’t dream of doin so in a million years because they are a nasty little busybody. Paul Burley really should consider the fact pubs are having a truly awful time and that the addition of this awning would have been very beneficial to the business. The city has far, far more important planning issues than this, but of course the low hanging fruit is easy to go for isn’t it………
The Planning Inspector can only consider planning and not economic considerations in an appeal.
Perhaps if the pubs owner consulted the planning department before making an application rather than just installing the awning and then having to make a retrospective application an then have to make an appeal the result might have been different for them.
And saved them a lot of money in the process.
In agreement. As a nearby resident it is a “non issue” set forth by those with far too much time on their hands and I include members of the council who should be focused on far far more important matters than this. The Park View is a respectable attracting looking venue and I would rather have it with an awning then see it close and become another rundown building, a squat house,or multi-occupancy building.
I’m not sure that the planning inspector’s statement is accurate at the end. There are some very strong evidence sources he could be directed towards.
The BBPA has consistently highlighted that outdoor seating, especially all-weather terraces, significantly boosts customer dwell time and spend. Their 2023 guidance on pub operations notes that climate resilience, including shelters and heating, is now a key factor in year-round revenue planning.
Barclays’ 2023 spending data showed a clear spike in pub visits during warmer months, but crucially, pubs with covered, heated terraces maintained 60–70% of that footfall during colder or wetter periods, a vital buffer against seasonal dips, and various industry reports indicate that pubs with all-weather outdoor areas see higher repeat visits and better online ratings.
Weighed against what is quintessentially a “I don’t like how it looks” objection, this seems like a poor decision on this occasion.
Jo made me think of something with her article. I do think there is value in a contextual commenter disclosure. Allowing a balance of the protections of privacy whilst providing context and democratic accountability.
“Resident of X Street”
“Employee of X Business”
“Representative of X Community Group/Charity”
And this comment by Tony Ward above makes me think the opposite
“The member of the Brighton Society should be ashamed of themselves but wouldn’t dream of doin so in a million years because they are a nasty little busybody.”
Releasing details of individuals could lead to threats against them and stating they work for a particular business can lead to negative consequences for an issue that isn’t related to them.
It was you wasn’t it Chris (grass)
No it wasn’t
And you’ve made my point for me by making petty insults as to why names should be redacted from the public.
Yep, Paul and Psycho (Ironic) made your argument very well for you!
It’s why I think a partial disclosure, rather than names, is a fair balance, because as these two…gentlemen…have shown us, a level of protection from thug-like behaviours is warranted.
Well then they shouldnt try causing more financial pressure o already struggling businesses
I slap the little busy body if infound out who it was
So you think making threats of violence is the way foreward?
Because it isn’t.
Another busy body with nothing better to do. Shame on you , what a waste of time and money . I do not see a problem here. Someone needs to get a grip on there life.
You mean like the Swiss fire inspectors
Why bother? Businesses in Hove do what they want!
On top of NI and business rates, employment law, highest electricity costs and food inflation, the government is lowering the drink drive limit to below one pint and less for young drivers. If they can’t even put up a retractable cover
, like they do everywhere in Europe, pubs may as well give up and convert to flats.
This one is a poor decision. The area is full of badly designed 1960s buildings so a awning that actually does add to the attractiveness of the building is hardly ruining the area. Unlike the awning at nayeb in Weston road ‘cough cough, jo Wadsworth’ do an update story please as to why it’s still there’ and the chip shop mental black and white paving on Preston street. Or literally every single vape shop signage across the city. Why has that not been inforced.
Haven’t these busy bodies got a life…
The council planning needs to look at the listed structures and buildings the council looks after, if private owners let things decay to the level they have to be fenced off the council would come down heavily on them.
So put up classic pub garden umbrellas no planning needed. The investment in the awning can be written off and deducted from corporation tax along with the costs of removal and legal fees incurred with the council.
Not when said costs are self inflicted, hard to deny when it’s public
How petty to report that to the council especially as pubs are having such a tough time at the moment. Surely that as none of the local residents/neighbours have complained since 3024 I imagine this is someone who lives nowhere nearby as they would have probably reported it sooner.
I love the Park View and have had summer parties there where the shelter has been great, especially with our summers 🌧️
*2024
If you go to the Brighton Society website you can see who wrote the objection. I hope the little man gets banned from all the pubs in the area.
I’ve passed this on to the Park View 👍.
I’ve written to B&H Planning Enforcement to raise my concern about proportionallity of the enforcement action.
I’ve also written to the Presont Park Ward Councillors; Steve Davis, Liz Loughran and Kerry Pickett stating my concern about the outcome and its potenial impact on a valued community business.
Such a shame B&H would do this to a well managed establishment
I’ve written to B&H Planning Enforcement to raise my concern about proportionality of the enforcement action. I’ve also written to the Preston Park Ward Councillors stating my concern about the outcome and its potential impact on a valued community business. Such a shame B&H would do this to a well managed establishment.
I’m not sure proportionality is a factor here. Permission was not granted, and the same proportional action of requiring the removal of the the unlawful elements would have been taken if this was any other determination, been loads of examples reported on this website. Well managed has nothing to do with planning permission.
However, I think there’s an argument for appeal, as I’ve detailed above, which provides a strong evidence based counterargument to the inspector’s subjective one.
I’m wondering what you are hoping to get out of the ward Councillors?
I take your point that enforcement follows from a refusal, and that good management in itself isn’t a planning consideration. Where I was coming from on proportionality is more about how discretion is applied in practice, particularly where the real-world impact on a community business is significant and the perceived harm is limited.
I agree there is a strong case on planning grounds as well, and I’m glad that’s being articulated. My reason for contacting the ward councillors isn’t to ask them to overturn a planning decision, but to make them aware of the wider community impact and to see whether they’re willing to engage officers about whether there’s any scope for a pragmatic or alternative solution going forward.
Ultimately, I’m just trying to support a well-used local pub and encourage a balanced outcome if at all possible.
And a very worthy goal indeed! Wish there were more people like you out there looking for those balanced solutions. Had a thought that might be worth exploring…I’m not sure that Preston Park has a designated neighbourhood area and neighbourhood forum. It’s a good way of having a mandatory voice and clearly articulating, through a neighbourhood plan, how the area is considered in things like planning applications.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/planning/planning-city/neighbourhood-planning-assistance-neighbourhood-forum
And yet the owner of Nayeb and Nayeb 2 continues to stick two fingers up to the council and operates his two premises having built out over the pavement.