A Brighton pub which lost a planning battle to keep its garden awning is now planning to replace it with three huge parasols.
The Park View in Preston Drove currently has a 12m wide goal post awning, but after a member of the Brighton Society alerted the council, it was told it needed permission.
This was refused, a subsequent appeal was dismissed and Brighton and Hove City Council finally served an enforcement notice telling pub owners Mitchell and Butler to take it down in December last year.
Now, the pubco has applied for planning permission for three 4m wide parasols – dubbed jumbrellas – to take its place.
The application, written by JTS Partnership, says: “Public houses are closing across the country at an increasing rate.
“In such challenging times, 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.
“The jumbrellas provide cover that increase customer comfort and allows great use of one on the business’ principal assets – its outdoor space.
“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.
“The front customer terrace is integral to the operation of the public house and is increasingly important to its continued success and viability.
“The Park View does not have a rear beer garden, with outdoor seating being limited to the paved terrace fronting Preston Drove.
“The jumbrellas will provide shade to the seating area from the sun in the summer months and cover from adverse weather in the winter months.
“They will provide a significant benefit to the public house year-round, making it more attractive to customers.”
Before the goal post awning went up in February 2024, the terrace had a single jumbrella, which had been given planning permission in 2008.
The goal post awning was described by planning inspector Paul Burley as “an alien feature in the townscape”.
I said this at the time, and I still think Mr Burley’s opinion is very subjective here; he claimed previously that the structure of the awning is not readily apparent, that’s a personal incredulity, and clearly resolved by looking at the patrons underneath it.
His further bizarre claim was that there was no evidence to suggest that the viability of the public house would be compromised if the awning was removed, which is easily evident on a rainy or windy day, since capacity reduces from not being able to use the outdoor space, and is strongly supported by evidence.
Oh well, large parasols instead are still going to do exactly what he thought was wrong with the awning, just in a more traditional way.
Benjamin — calling something “subjective” doesn’t magically make it wrong, it just means you don’t like it.
“Personal incredulity” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you here as well. The issue wasn’t whether humans possess the groundbreaking ability to *see people sitting under an awning*. It was about how the structure presents in the streetscape — which, inconveniently, is exactly what planning decisions are supposed to consider.
As for the pub’s “obvious” loss of viability every time it rains — that’s not evidence, that’s you describing weather. If that were enough to override planning policy, every building in the country would have a permanent gazebo bolted to it.
And yes, congratulations, you’ve finally stumbled onto the point: the parasols *do* achieve a similar function — just without looking like a 12-metre afterthought stapled onto the front of the building.
So no, the inspector wasn’t being “bizarre.” You just don’t agree with a fairly standard planning judgment and are dressing that up as some kind of intellectual flaw.
Clearly didn’t read the earlier article, notice the allusion to go look at it, or understand planning considerations. You continue to demonstrate the flaws of AI, especially when it’s used in such a cack-handed way.
More Twat GPT from Benjy. No views are allowed if they deviate from the wisdom of the omniscient Benjamin.
If words and grammar are the only standard to make you think something is AI-generated, we’re really in trouble. Say something silly, weak, or debatable, I’m gonna challenge you on it. You’re not going to get anywhere with sticks and stones, so you can imagine how I feel about hurty words! 😑
The loser who contacted the council about this, needs to find a new hobby.
Probably a clue in the first comment 🤔