The future of one of Brighton’s distinctive green-tiled pubs is now uncertain, following the collapse of a court case.
Brighton and Hove City Council today withdrew their prosecution of developer Charlie Southall, saying a planning inspector’s ruling meant it was no longer in the public interest to proceed.
This afternoon, a second appeal which dealt with similar issues was also allowed, with the inspector again awarding costs against the council.
During the hearing, the council’s barrister Peter Savil said the council has no intention of reviving any prosecution over the enforcement notice.
Southall himself said the situation was now one of “planning paralysis”. Brighton and Hove City Council have been approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.
The pub was put on the market with Savills in March last year, and for sale boards were put up over its damaged tiles. But the listing was removed from the estate agent’s website in August, and the boards have now been taken down.
Meanwhile, structural reports say the pub is in serious disrepair, with major repairs needed to corroded structural steels and large sections of its external walls needing to be rebuilt.
Southall has made multiple planning applications and appeals since ripping the tiles off the pub in March 2022, starting with an unsuccessful appeal against the enforcement notice itself.
The council granted him permission to restore the pub in 2024, but imposed several conditions including that he must provide details of any tiles which needed to be removed for structural work before removing them.
He lodged an appeal against the conditions – but withdrew this at the eleventh hour. It can now be reported that the council subsequently applied for Southall to have to pay their costs, which was approved.
The inspector said Southall had acted unreasonably because he had requested a public hearing – but had subsequently demanded that people attending should be vetted in advance in case they put him at personal risk.
When he was told this was not possible, he withdrew the appeal because of safety concerns, because of the risk of the planning permission being revoked, and because he thought the inspector was biased because she had previously worked for the council.
The inspector said these were not good reasons, and awarded the council costs. The costs decision can be read here.
The council refused the February 2025, but this was overturned on appeal, meaning he is now free to take off the tiles in order to do the restoration with no further sign off.
One of the issues the council raised in refusing the sign-off was the quality of expert reports Southall submitted.
In emails he provided to the planning inspector, the council’s planning staff said they were concerned one of these was Southall’s version of the full report, and could be “selectively quoted”.
Another was from pest controllers Rentokil, who the officers said would not be qualified to make structural judgements.
However a third was by an established structural engineer, Couch Consulting Engineers, dated February 2024 and based in part on a survey carried out in October 2022.
The council sent this to an independent structural surveyor who said the report was sound, and that it would be difficult to limit tile removal just to the areas where repairs needed to be made.
None of these comments and concerns were communicated to Southall, and the planning inspector ruled that by not explaining why his reports were not sufficient for them, it had acted unreasonably.
He also said it was reasonable for all the tiles to be taken off so the extensive structural work the building now requires can take place.
All the extensive documents relating to this application can be read here.
The second successful appeal, which was published this afternoon, was to remove two conditions relating to the removal and replacement of the tiles.
This was allowed and costs ordered for very similar reasons to the appeal decided in November. The rulings can be read here.
However, the two conditions relating to the tiles have now been replaced with a single new condition which says any tiles which need to removed for repairs have to be repaired and re-instated where possible – and that any replacements must be the same font, size, colour, material and finish as the originals. The building can’t be occupied until this is done.
Meanwhile, Southall has also appealed a refusal of another application, this one to declare the enforcement notice is invalid because it is inconsistent with the subsequent grant of planning permission to restore the pub.
The pub was bought by Southall for £420,000 in February 2022 via a company he set up, Dragonfly Architectural Services.
According to accounts filed today for another of Southall’s companies, Dragonfly Digital Video Services Ltd, it was passed from the former to the latter’s ownership in May this year.
The accounts say: “The company purchased an investment property from its subsdiary, Dragonfly Architectural Services Limited, on 23 May 2025.
“The consideration of £200,000 was based on a professional valuation carried out by an independent firm of Chartered Surveyors in May 2025.”
This whole saga reads as someone who is clearly self-serving, dishonourable, and willing to litigate-first, negotiation-second, in an adversarial capacity. I wonder if, even if he does finally manage to repair the building and restore the valuable historical tiles, will this building even be used?
Council did a poor job here, messing up on procedural grounds and giving him oxygen to filibuster even longer.
Dont be stupid Jo, told you ages ago that your articles were false an misleading and now its all come to ahead. Good luck to him and hope he turns it into something successfull
I didn’t write any of these? And I’m not Jo? Want to try that again, this time, within the confines of reality?
It’s so obviously Southall writing these pathetic crybaby comments.
He created the mess didn’t get advice from council instead did what he wanted.
Charlie knew what he was doing. Report from rentokil my God
a UK council can carry out repairs on a historic property and then effectively place a financial charge on that property under enforcement powers until the council is repaid. With interest. In England and Wales, it’s typically done through a local land charge or a charge registered against the title. A form of lien.
It is surprising the council did not take this pragmatic approach against this piece of work when he refused to co-operate. it might have saved a lot of time and public money.
I didn’t know about that, Maxine. That’s actually a really good idea. They could still do it now, if the current legal issue isn’t preventative. You should write to the council to suggest it.
As it’s not a listed building…..
A direction under Section 76 of the Act
6. Section 76 of the Act enables the Secretary of State to direct (after consulting Historic England) that the s.54 powers shall apply to an unlisted building in a conservation area if it appears to her that its preservation is important for maintaining the character or appearance of that area. The Secretary of State will consider sympathetically requests to make such a direction in respect of an unlisted building which makes a positive contribution to a conservation area. Such requests should be supported by evidence confirming the importance of the building to the conservation area.
I read into it a little bit more since yesterday, because it was interesting. For unlisted buildings in a conservation area, those urgent works powers only apply if the Secretary of State makes a Section 76 direction. So it COULD potentially, but it seems a lot more complex to go down that route, and I think there would be questions on whether it would be proportionate. Charlie was actively doing things, after all.
Guys. Hate to break it to you… Hanover is not a conservation area.
Council procedure, or lack of is why this case is out, and leaking selective titbits to the Media is not exactly fair play, if there is or was a culprit in sight then all the council had to do was dissect the arguement and enforce legality, not so in this case. Councils should not be acting like Dixie Mafia just to get their way, they have legal experts on hand, taxpayer funded, we the public deserve better.
Why is this old pub historic? Apart from its age.
Let’s be honest — Benjamin has been one of the loudest voices pushing a narrative of bad faith and implied guilt long before any court had ruled on the matter.
For years he has framed Charlie as a “clearly bad faith director,” presenting opinion as if it were established fact. Yet at Lewes Crown Court the prosecution was formally abandoned, no evidence was offered, and not guilty verdicts were recorded. That is not a technicality — that is the legal outcome.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s actions. It’s another to repeatedly characterise them as dishonest or acting improperly while proceedings are ongoing and before scrutiny has run its course. That kind of commentary doesn’t elevate debate — it prejudges it.
The judge himself raised concerns about process, influence and communication in what he described as a charged local environment. Those were serious issues. But instead of waiting for due process, some chose to cement a narrative early and reinforce it often.
If we’re going to have strong opinions, we should also have the integrity to adjust them when the facts — and the court record — don’t support the assumptions.
Exactly this
James, a prosecution being withdrawn doesn’t mean there was no basis for criticism, nor does it rewrite the history of what’s happened over the past few years. The criminal case was one part of a much longer planning saga involving enforcement notices, appeals, cost awards and findings from inspectors. Those decisions remain part of the public record.
It’s entirely reasonable to criticise how someone has conducted themselves within the planning system without claiming criminal guilt. The two aren’t the same. If the building is ultimately restored properly, that will be welcome. But it’s not unreasonable to judge conduct over several years based on documented actions and outcomes, not just the final position of one prosecution.
This architectural vandal has just about got away with it. I wouldn’t let him build with Lego bricks. He deserves every bit of criticism that has been levelled at him. Absolutely no sympathy for this arrogant individual.
Benjamin, the issue isn’t whether people are allowed to criticise conduct within the planning system — of course they are. The issue is tone, repetition, and the way you consistently frame your criticism as moral judgment.
You don’t just “criticise conduct.” You label people “self-serving,” “dishonourable,” acting in “bad faith.” You frequently position yourself as the rational arbiter while belittling other commenters as if they’re incapable of understanding nuance. That pattern matters. It shapes perception.
When commentary crosses from scrutiny into character assassination, especially over a prolonged and highly charged dispute, it contributes to a hostile environment. The judge explicitly raised concerns about public influence, media narratives, and the impact on Charlie’s health and safety. Those weren’t abstract questions. They were serious enough to be put on the record in court.
No one is saying a withdrawn prosecution erases the wider planning history. But equally, the planning history doesn’t justify years of personalised attacks dressed up as civic virtue. There is a difference between holding institutions and individuals to account and repeatedly portraying someone as morally corrupt before processes have fully played out.
You’re right that criticism and criminal guilt aren’t the same. But nor is sustained public vilification the same as reasonable scrutiny. If we’re talking about what remains on the public record, so too does the fact that the court considered the wider atmosphere around this case — including how narratives were formed and amplified.
Perhaps the real question isn’t whether criticism is allowed, but whether it has been responsible.
You’re framing this as a debate about tone and personal vilification, but my criticism has always been rooted in the documented actions and procedural outcomes, not moral character. Let’s be specific, as you’ve retreated into high concepts.
The facts are these: Charlie Southall removed the historic tiles without consent, triggering an enforcement notice. He then appealed the conditions for restoration, but withdrew that appeal at the eleventh hour. A planning inspector, after reviewing the case, ruled his reasons for withdraw citing safety and bias, were not good reasons. That’s not my opinion; it’s a finding in a public planning decision. As a direct result, costs were awarded against him. That’s a formal sanction for procedural conduct. Specifics.
I’m not engaging in “vilification.” I’m pointing to a public record of actions and official findings. If that’s uncomfortable, perhaps the solution isn’t to accuse critics of bias, but to reflect on how this individual has, in fact, acted in bad faith throughout this process right from the start – starting with the unlawful destruction of 1927 historical tiles protected by law.
Benjamin — you’re offering a strong opinion in the absence of the actual record.
If you want to talk about formal findings and sanctions arising from procedural conduct, why ignore the ones that already exist?
• 2023 (Valuation Tribunal / council tax): after the Council tried to double the council tax on the derelict premises, the Tribunal expressly criticised the Council’s approach as “flawed”, including that the extent of the works had not been properly appreciated. The practical consequence of the backdated deletion is simple: from 1 March 2022 the property could not properly remain chargeable, so liability had to be reversed and any sums levied/paid reimbursed.
• 3 February 2025 (ICO): the Information Commissioner’s Office concluded BHCC processed and published personal data without a valid lawful basis, and required remedial steps. That’s not commentary — it’s a regulatory finding.
• November 2025 (Planning Inspectorate costs): costs awarded against the Council, including the conclusion it was “unreasonable” to maintain that insufficient information had been provided about the building’s condition. Costs only follow where a party has behaved unreasonably, and BHCC was ordered to pay.
• 27 February 2026 (Planning Inspectorate costs again): a further costs decision finding unreasonable behaviour — the Council’s case was “unduly reliant on vague and generalised assertions” and “amounts to unreasonable behaviour”. Again, costs ordered from public funds.
And on top of that, following yesterday’s Crown Court hearing, the prosecution has collapsed — meaning the Council will now likely face another costs consequence.
So here’s the point: when you talk about “findings”, why are you being so selective? Is it because you haven’t looked at the facts — or because they don’t fit the story you want to tell?
The council clearly made mistakes here as well; however, was removing listed-style heritage tiles without consent lawful and appropriate at the time it occurred?
That’s the foundational act.
Everything after is procedural fallout.
Is ‘James’ Charlie Southall?
Turns out James is a) Charlie Southall or b) a stalker or C) someone that needs to read less local newspapers
Benjamin, that’s not quite accurate.
The tile façade on the former pub was not legally protected. In England, legal protection for historic buildings comes through statutory listing (Grade I, II*, or II) under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act. This building was not listed, so those protections never applied.
Instead, it was included on the council’s local list, which simply categorises it as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). In legal terms, that designation carries no direct statutory protection. It does not make works to the building unlawful, nor does it create any offence comparable to works to a listed building.
What NDHA status does is much more limited: it means the asset can be treated as a material consideration during a planning application. Even then, the weight given to it is discretionary and typically far less than that given to a nationally listed building.
So the claim that the 1927 tiles were “protected by law” or that their removal was “unlawful destruction” is simply incorrect. The building never had statutory heritage protection.
If half you people had used the pub when it was open it wouldn’t have been closed in the first place and this complete toss pot wouldn’t have got hold of it, admittedly as a regular it was in need of repair internally at least, just shame to see it gone, was a fantastic little pub.
1927? So the tiles are not ‘Victorian’ after all?!
Gail, if, like some of us, you have lived in the area for a long time, then you’ll know why the green-tiled pubs are significant for the Brighton town centre area. And that’s why the building was listed as being ‘of interest’ and considered a community asset.
It doesn’t matter if the green tiles date from Victorian times, or from a slightly later era.
As it happens, I lived directly opposite the Montreal Arms for over 30 years, and I can tell you there was nothing wrong with the structure of the building until Charlie chose to wreck it.
The council rightly stood up to this, but of course they also have a duty not to waste our council tax on legal fees.
Brighton and Hove has a history of rogue developers and unethical landlords getting away with architectural vandalism and worse. The building where I now live has connections with someone called Hoogstraten – who you can google.
Im sorry but this is nonsense. My auntie run this pub for years and it has been in rack and ruin for years
You’ll have to explain what you mean by rack and ruin.
It was run down, yes.
I lived opposite long enough to know three owners or landlord mangers, dating back to 1978.
*managers
Where do i start, water penetrating through the ceiling upstairs due to constant issuses with roof. Same with dampness all around the window frames due to old brickwork, water penertrating through damaged tiles causing dampness internally leading to wallpaper constantly peeling off and causing mould. Shall i go on
No Charlie, please stop commenting on your own storie it’s killing me
A typical dave worthless comment
Billy, what you are saying is not true, the record proves otherwise.
The former tenant of the Montreal Arms held the pub on a fully repairing lease, meaning they were responsible for maintaining it. They ran it for nearly 40 years but allowed the building to fall into serious disrepair. The building’s condition was even recorded as a main contributing factor in the business failing.
The tenant abandoned the site in August 2021, leaving debts unpaid. At the time, the landlord (Stonegate Group) assessed dilapidations at around £100,000.
People in Hanover seem to forget this history. There was a notice in the windows for a long time about Stonegate’s peaceful re-entry, and Stonegate then submitted a planning application to repair the building, including removing the damaged façade — all public record and viewable online.
This building was in a bad state long before it was sold to this new developer in 2022. Calling the new chap a “villain” ignores the reality: major parts need rebuilding. The tiles had holes that were letting water in, and that’s a big part of the problems being dealt with now.
26 years out of place and still gets used as an arguement, there is also a big difference between original and “in the style of”, bit like buying a watch in the style of “Rolex” not the real deal but looks a bit like one.
Where do i start, water penetrating through the ceiling upstairs due to constant issuses with roof. Same with dampness all around the window frames due to old brickwork, water penertrating through damaged tiles causing dampness internally leading to wallpaper constantly peeling off and causing mould. Shall i go on
Please stop
Exceptional contribution
The row over the Montreal Arms has now split into two arguments: what legally happened, and who helped inflame it.
The prosecution brought by Brighton and Hove City Council has collapsed, and planning inspectors have criticised the council in several rulings. At the same time, earlier findings also went against the developer over procedural conduct. So formally, fault hasn’t sat entirely on one side.
But in the comments, attention has turned to Benjamin. Some now argue he was a key culprit in amplifying hostility — repeatedly framing the developer as acting in bad faith before court processes had concluded. Others maintain his criticism was based on documented planning decisions and public records.
Legally, the case now hinges on restoration and compliance. Publicly, it’s become a debate about responsibility — not just for the tiles, but for the tone of the entire saga
Again, I must impress upon you that your summary suggests the main issue is that people “prejudged” the criminal case. That’s not quite the full picture.
Criticism wasn’t formed in a vacuum the moment the tiles came down. It’s based on a documented pattern of behaviour over several years. Instead, it is a series of outcomes that, to an observer, look like a strategy of delay, obfuscation, and disregard for the process. The criminal case was just one thread.
Tone is a fair criticism, but we must also be wary of a narrative that overlooks half the story.
Benjamin,
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it is a criminal offence in the UK to publish material that creates a “substantial risk of serious prejudice” to active legal proceedings. That isn’t a technicality — it is a fundamental safeguard to protect the integrity of the justice system.
The Crown Court was required to consider the sustained personal comments and public attacks you chose to make while proceedings were active. When someone repeatedly publishes material that risks influencing a case, the court must assess whether a fair trial is still possible. That scrutiny is precisely what led to the hearing collapsing.
You cannot fuel public commentary, make ongoing personal attacks, and then distance yourself from the consequences when the process is compromised. Had you exercised restraint instead of pursuing years of commentary, the matter could have proceeded without obstruction and justice may well have prevailed.
It’s time to acknowledge the role your own actions played. Take accountability Benjamin
That is a hallucination of GPT’s creation; the prosecution was withdrawn on public interest grounds following the planning inspector’s ruling. There has been no reported judicial finding that public commentary created a substantial risk of serious prejudice or caused the case to collapse.
Remember, AI can, and often, make mistakes. Some advice? Use it as a tool, not a complete replacement for your thoughts, and double-check its assertions.
Benjamin,
You’ve repeatedly framed this as a narrow procedural win and insisted that “karmic justice” was still coming — describing Charlie’s actions as vandalism and suggesting he was simply delaying the inevitable.
However, the Crown Court has now dropped the case against him. That materially changes the landscape.
For months, you asserted that this was just temporary relief and that larger consequences were certain to follow. Yet the criminal proceedings — the most serious element of this dispute — have not resulted in a conviction. Whatever your personal feelings about the tiles, it’s no longer accurate or fair to continue presenting him as though guilt was established and punishment inevitable.
The planning inspector was clear: the council lost on process, not principle. The inspector also made it explicit that alleged past misconduct and motivations were not relevant to the decision being made. That wasn’t a loophole — it was a correct application of planning law.
Now that the Crown Court case has fallen away, continuing to characterise this as proven “vandalism” is simply rhetoric. There has been no criminal finding to support that claim.
You’re entitled to disagree with the aesthetics or with the developer’s approach. But presenting speculation as certainty and repeatedly implying wrongdoing after proceedings have concluded risks drifting from informed commentary into personal fixation.
At some point, it’s reasonable to accept the outcomes of both the Planning Inspectorate and the court process — even when they don’t align with your expectations.
Your AI is arguing with itself at this point, James. Remember, AI can, and often, make mistakes. Some advice? Use it as a tool, not a complete replacement for your thoughts, and double-check its assertions.
When you click on a story, but it’s impossible to read on your phone… and there are 50 different pop-ups!