A judge has ordered the council to pay a developer who ripped green tiles off a Brighton pub his costs after it decided to halt a prosecution.
Brighton and Hove City Council withdrew its case after Judge Mark van der Zwart asked it to review its decision to prosecute Charlie Southall over his failure to replace tiles taken off the Montreal Arms in March 2022.
Southall applied to Lewes Crown Court for the council to refund him his expenses – and this month, Judge van der Zwart agreed.
In the ruling, he said it was clear Southall had sought repeatedly to talk to the council about how best to put the tiles back on, given the state of the bungaroosh walls underneath.
He said: “I find the correspondence shows a developer keen to engage with the council to find the best solution to the state of the building, to preserve it’s character while enabling it to function again in the 21st century, a developer keen to comply with rather than ignore the statutory framework to do so, a developer anxious to comply with the enforcement notice but equally anxious to explain why compliance was impractical.
“In addition, he complains to BHCC of the community hostility being directed toward himself and his family, made worse by what BHCC were to admit (and I find no reason to doubt) was an accidental publication of Mr Southall’s home address.”
The judgement also refers to a report Southall submitted in 2023 by Couch Consulting Engineers which detailed the “advanced deterioration” of the building, which he says should have caused the council to withdraw the enforcement notice.
He said: “I have sought repeatedly, an explanation from BHCC for why that decision [to prosecute] was taken in view of what has been set out above about the impracticality of complying with the enforcement notice but none has been given.”
He quoted emails from Sian Berry MP to the planning department in September 2024, in which she said it felt appropriate for the council to push Southall to adhere to the enforcement notice in the absence of engagement and a commitment to undertake the work, noting these were sent four months after planning permission had been given to refurb the pub.
The ruling also quotes an email from ward councillor Tim Rowkins sent the following week: “‘The feeling in the community’ was that Mr Southall had ‘acted in bad faith from the outset’, the removal of tiles was ‘an act of vandalism on a historic and valued building’, the passing of the time limit for the enforcement notice ‘without consequence’ was ‘not palatable to residents’ who would see the ‘villain getting away with it’.
“Councillor Rowkins expressed the belief that Mr Southall would not begin the repairs in a timely fashion without ‘us’ (I presume he meant the council) ‘taking a very firm approach’.
“In my judgement, this email amounts to an elected council member having determined together with his constituents, that the defendant was a vandal and a villain who should be prosecuted.
“In my judgement, it was a blatant attempt to force a prosecutorial decision for political reasons. Sadly, it seems to have worked.”
Councillor Rowkins announced the prosecution was starting in a Facebook post the following May.
Southall requested £20,268.60 in costs, which consisted of £11,475.60 in payments to legal advisors, expert witnesses and admin support, plus rail fares, and £8,797 for his own time as a litigant in person.
Judge van der Zwart awarded him the £11,475.60 but not the latter sum.
A council spokesperson said: “While the outcome is unfortunate, we do accept the decision of the court.
“At all times the council has strived to act in line with planning enforcement policy and in the best interests of the community.
“The property remains on the local list of heritage assets and is listed as an asset of community value.
“What is important for the local residents is that the building should now be restored. It’s clear for everyone to see that it’s currently in a state of disrepair.
“We look forward to seeing the full restoration of the Montreal Arms soon, in line with the planning permission that has been given.”
No visible work has yet started on the pub.
What has been done by the owner is clearly wrong. However, the mismanagement of local council officials and politicians is incompetent beyond belief. Those that are still in Council positions should pay the ‘penalty’ and be prohibited from any further costly mistakes.
If you actually read the full findings you will understand that the owner was in his rights to carry out the works. Unfortunately people like the journo that wrote the article and people like benny boy on here pictured him to be some vandal. If you look back all though this I said the truth will come out, it’s ashame that a few people didn’t believe me
The council completely mishandled things after 2022 and maybe you refer to subsequent works around reinstatement. Prior though, I don’t believe developer Charlie Southall had planning permission or any other prior authorization from Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC), to remove the historic green-glazed ceramic tiles from the facade of the Montreal Arms in March 2022. If I’m wrong show me the link to the permission?
There was a prior application by them previous owners but this was withdrawn due to resistance about the tiles being removed – https://publicaccess.brighton-hove.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=contacts&keyVal=QY54LUDM0V500
Good that it went his way the poor fella
Great to see Charlie’s fans are here in the comments – we can all now look forward to seeing what Charlie destroys next.
Are you OK? Need a hug ?
Can’t wait to have a pint when Charlie has finished his project
The true cost of this saga to taxpayers must surely now be well into six figures. It has been running since 2022, involving top lawyers, multiple senior barristers and two previous planning inspector findings of “unreasonable behaviour”. This latest £11,000 costs award is the third the council have to pay out over this saga, of course, yet another bill that will ultimately be paid from the public purse.
The true villains of the piece will face zero consequences. Sian Berry MP, councillor Ollie Sykes and various planning officers will suffer no personal ill effects from their lazy attempts at vilifying Mr Southall. Hopefully voters will take notice now the truth has emerged.
Has anyone seen Benjamin is he ok
The judge said putting the tiles back would be about as useful as tiling a sandcastle. The structure beneath is failing, and permission has now been granted for all the tiles to come off to facilitate rebuilding.
So what, exactly, was Southall wrong about? He said from the start that the tiles needed removing. He did not realise permission was required, and stopped as soon as the authorities told him it was.
Some people here say the council should have gone after him harder. How much harder? The man ended up in Crown Court — only for the judge to find that the prosecution should never have been brought.
This whole saga was driven by ideology and a refusal to confront the actual condition of the building. This man has been piled on for years.
Isn’t it time people left him alone?
If Southall was such an innocent victim then why the subterfuge, the story about housing refugees, the crowdfunding and so on? The man’s a piece of work, the council are incompetent, rules are for little people and more than one thing can be true. No-one comes out of it looking good. Still. There’ll be no consequences for anyone so why worry?
I saw no “subterfuge”. People initially supported it, and then someone called it a “Trojan horse” and the conspiracy took over.
Not every proposal is a scam.
What has years of outrage, suspicion and opposition actually achieved? Go and look at the building. That is the result.
At some point, people have to accept that bringing an old building back into use in the real world requires compromise. Instead, this became a pile-on fuelled by conspiracy theories and opposition to almost every idea — and now there are serious questions about the council’s own conduct.
You’re conflating two points. Firstly, if the initial development process was open and transparent then the community would’ve grumbled and moved on. I don’t recall the same outrage when, say, The Hanover was demolished for housing. Secondly, the idea there’s some conspiracy theory is for the birds. If you’re unwilling to at least entertain the possibility that the initial Lyle Lanley-esque crowdfunding scheme was somewhat problematic, then you either have an interest in not doing so or I have a bridge to sell you.
People aren’t against housing when it’s done in a fair and equitable way. People are against schemes that appear to exploit both a human catastrophe and their good nature for private profit.
You’re conflating two points. Firstly, if the initial development process was open and transparent then the community would’ve grumbled and moved on. I don’t recall the same outrage when, say, The Hanover was demolished for housing. Secondly, the idea there’s some conspiracy theory is for the birds. If you’re unwilling to at least entertain the possibility that the initial Lyle Lanley-esque crowdfunding scheme was somewhat problematic, then you either have an interest in not doing so or I have a bridge to sell you.
People aren’t against housing when it’s done in a fair and equitable way. People are against schemes that appear to exploit both a human catastrophe and their good nature for private profit.
You’re presenting suspicion as fact.
Saying someone “appeared to exploit a human catastrophe for private profit” is a very serious allegation. Where is the evidence? It’s one thing to dislike or criticise a proposal; it’s another to infer dishonest motives without proof.
This is exactly how this whole saga spiralled. Anonymous rumours were repeated until people accepted them as truth. I’ve seen claims that Charlie was sneaking onto the site at night damaging the building himself, or that he somehow made it become derelict. None of it was backed by evidence, yet it was repeated as though it were fact.
Criticise decisions, question proposals, disagree with the planning process—that’s entirely fair. But once people start attributing motives and making accusations without evidence, they’re no longer discussing facts; they’re repeating rumours.
Completely correct
Brian that is not driftwood
I see you forgot to switch accounts this time, how many comments here are actually just you spamming your BS I wonder…
Switch accounts random comment just this account I’m.affraid me myself and I mr potato
He did not realise permission was needed? Are you serious… defending the developer’s initial actions ignores basic commercial and regulatory reality…
Southall acquired the site through a professional entity, Dragonfly Architectural Services Ltd. The idea that a commercial development firm “did not realise” planning permission was required to strip a historic tile facade on a locally listed asset within a conservation area is a joke. Furthermore, the requirement for permission was already a public record and certainly something they would have been aware of when buying the asset. Only five months prior, the previous owner had formally withdrawn an application to remove these exact tiles due to intense local opposition.
This was never about an ideology, imho the developer thought he could rip the tiles off and then it would be ‘too late’ for anyone to do anything about it… then say sorry and ge on with it. What he miscalculated on this occasion was the strength of public outcry about the destruction of a piece of local history. I’m no fan of the council or most councillors but most of their actions in this matter were likely driven by letters and lobbying from their constituents.
I’m no fan of the council or the planning department – and they messed the handling of this up, but let’s not make out Southall is some innocent chap being persecuted.
Sarah B.
Charlie DID sneak in and vandalise the place, FACT. The evidence is the removal of the tiles without the relevant permissions. If he had gone through the correct process and obtained the relevant go-ahead, this whole pantomime would not have occurred. As someone who describes himself as an owner of an architectural services company and property developer, I respectfully submit that he was, if not should have been, acquainted with the correct procedures. If he was not, I would think twice about engaging his “professional services” unless of course you have no respect for the rules.
Snuck into his own building and vandalised a run down building hahaha
“Sneak” was the terminology employed by Sarah B. I was merely paraphrasing in my reply.
When you cause further damage to a building by removing the facade without the necessary permission, then it can qualify as vandalism. If someone decided to redecorate or graffiti your home, is it not vandalism? As a “Hanover resident,” I would think you are acutely aware of the concept of conservation.
If you have trouble with that, one might presume you are either one of the miscreants, a staunch friend sadly mistaken or have not absorbed the situation. The only reason for the ordering of costs against the Council, was incompetence within the department.
If someone redecorated or graffiti my home ? If my home was damaged and needed drastic repairs I would welcomed the work being done. Especially if my home was vacant for numerous years like the ex pub
So what will happen to it now?
Well, now he can go ahead and do the work he wants to!
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.”Benjamin made these remarks in response to another commenter calling the developer, Charlie Southall, an “architectural vandal” who needed “lessons in legality”. While Benjamin called for enforcement through fines and legal action, the subsequent criminal prosecution by the Brighton and Hove City Council ultimately collapsed, resulting in a judge ordering the council to pay the developer’s legal fees.
You really haven’t read through the 23 page document have you. Face ccountability for what ? Doing what he is allowed to do ? Benjamin or Jo ( as they are the same lerson) had it in for him from day one let’s hope they get the comeuppance too !
Nice to know you care, although I thought I was supposed to Benjamin Franks? I forget who I’m alleged to be this week, it changes so frequently. Anyway, it seems like half of the reasoning according to the judge, was down to the incompetence of the council for having such a long delay to enforce. Like others have said above, winning on a technicality doesn’t absolve bad faith motivations. Still, the judgment has been made, and we have to live with the concequences. Charlie has claimed multiple things about his intentions for Hanover.
I await with bated breath for Charlie to prove my opinion of him wrong.
Incompetence of the council major understatement. Or maybe the ignoring of the constant facts that the building needed major work, nah let’s not look at the evidence let’s just go after the owner. I told you from day one benny that the truth will come out and it has. I can’t wait for him to finally redevelop this place and prove you wrong
Let’s not misrepresent – we’re all reading the same judgment. This was down to the council’s legal team failing to prosecute properly and in a timely manner, and failing to adapt to the changing circumstances. It is an established fact he did pull off and damage original tiles without planning permission, and as others have already said, it seems incredulous that he didn’t know he needed planning permission. His crowdfunding campaign which can easily be described as opportunistic exploitation of the poor refugees of Ukraine which he stopped as soon as he was called out on it, and let us remind ourselves of the fillibusting he engaged with at every opportunity, highlighting to many the bad faith acting of Charlie throughout this entire saga.
And ultimately, you’ve made it very clear, trying to “prove me wrong” is far more important in your mind then anything else.
Benjamin: It was not a ‘technical point’. The judge set out numerous failings on the part of the council and referenced bad faith on their part. Thankfully, the court’s measured and balanced opinion on the facts counts for more than your yours which are full of blatant nuance and bias as usual.
Several technical points, yes, lol.
At the least this should give the journalist, councillors, Sian Berry and council officers pause to reflect because none of them come out well.
The original reporting demonised Southall and gave the impression to readers across the city that what he was doing was illegal and vandalism.
Politicians were too quick to get on the bandwagon in order to endear themselves with a sharp elbowed community who are used to getting their way.
And officers should have done their job and said NO to the politicians.
Planning should also stop pretending that bungaroosh buildings are remotely fit for purpose in the C21st and must be persevered at all costs.
It is an established fact he did pull off and damage original tiles without planning permission.
The tiles were already damaged Jesus’s christ
SOME tiles were already damaged; that’s not an excuse.
Most tiles were damaged, plus he can take them ALL off
Now you’re just lying. But that’s just characteristic of your sycophantic defence of Charlie throughout.
The removal of the remaining tiles was a necessity to investigate and carry out structural repairs to the walls of the buiding upon which the tiles were adhered. The judge felt it necessary to emphasise this point by referring to repairing the tiling as ‘about as useful as tiling a sandcastle’. I await your next salvo of enveterate, futile deflection….
I’m lying ? I have had ties to the pub for about 35 years and done numerous repairs to the inside of the property. I know quite a bit more about it then you benny
An appeal to authority, you still failed to answer that he did not have planning permission to remove the titles at that time. This has been established as fact by the judge. You read the paper, so you know this, and you’re not stupid, therefore you must be lying, HR.
Sorry, Atticus, but repairing the titles is an irrelevant point here, this is talking about before the assessment. Initially, Charlie removed titles he wasn’t supposed. He’s made his arguments why he did that. The long delay between enforcement did the council no favours, and heavily leaned the Judge towards Charlie.
There seems to be a lot of opinion in this thread being presented as fact.
The facts are straightforward. Charlie removed some tiles before planning permission had been obtained. He has never denied that, and the work stopped once the council made clear that permission was required.
What happened next matters just as much. Planning inspectors twice found the council had acted unreasonably. Permission was subsequently granted for all the remaining tiles to be removed because the structure beneath required repair. The Crown Court then ruled that the criminal prosecution should never have been brought and ordered the council to pay Charlie’s costs.
That rather proves the central point: the tiles ultimately did need to come off.
Some comments treat the lack of initial planning permission as though it were proof of bad faith or criminality. It isn’t. Retrospective planning permission exists precisely because it is not uncommon for work to begin before permission is sought. Every planning application even asks whether work has already started.
People are free to dislike Charlie or disagree with his proposals. But the legal findings now speak for themselves. The building needed the work, permission was ultimately granted, and the prosecution was found to have been wrongly pursued.
What strikes me is how much energy and public money has been spent arguing over something that has now effectively been accepted as necessary.
The building isn’t listed. It isn’t in a conservation area. The tiles weren’t Victorian and weren’t even original to the building. Yet the debate often proceeded as though an irreplaceable historic asset was being destroyed.
The reality is that the walls behind the tiles were failing. The judge described putting the tiles back as being “about as useful as tiling a sandcastle”, and planning permission has now been granted for the remaining tiles to be removed.
Meanwhile, the building has continued to deteriorate, taxpayers have funded years of legal action, and the owner has faced relentless personal attacks.
I live very close to the mess and it does affect us.
Surely the sensible course now is to stop refighting the past. It’s been proven that this man is not a ‘vandal’ or ‘criminal’. This has been deciding a courtroom, so people should accept that.
It has now been proven that the tiles needed to come off all along. People just need to accept that now.