The council has clarified its current position on what can now be done to ensure the Montreal Arms isn’t left to fall into even worse disrepair.
Brighton and Hove City Council withdrew its prosecution of owner Charlie Southall last month, saying a planning inspector’s ruling meant it was no longer in the public interest.
Click here for more background to the case.
If any work is now done to restore the pub, this will have to include putting back the tiles in accordance with planning permission.
This has just been updated by planning inspector C Housden to state that 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 used or occupied until this is done.
But if nothing happens, the council says it will monitor the situation – including the safety of the building.
A spokesman said: “If Mr Southall decided not to implement the planning permission/s (including the permission granted by the inspectorate as recently as 27 February 2026), the council would need to review the situation, including the safety of the site, if either of these planning permissions are not implemented before their expiry in June 2027.
“If Mr Southall implements planning permission, the requirements in relation to the tiles are clear. If he commences any development, he will need to do so in accordance with the planning conditions and the council will monitor the compliance.
“If a permission is implemented and then not completed, there are potential options for the council to consider in relation to trying to compel completion of the development.
“The council is not considering purchasing the pub.”
This will never, ever be anything but an eye sore. What is it? Coming up to five years? Think about the people who own the house next door? Think about the residents who have to walk past it all the time (Me).
Clearly the owner has more brains and patience than the council, who will back down eventually and this will be flats in 20230.
The council – should have more balls.
Just need to make sure they get the process right, so there’s not a technicality to challenge.
The old joke – How do you buy a pub and make a small fortune?
You get a large fortune then buy a pub . Boom- boom
Typical, the council try and do what is right by the community, but the planning inspectorate ride roughshot over the will of the council and the people, and let this vandal get away with the destruction of this piece of our history based on a technicality and him kicking off about every issue and throwing his money at challenging every point in minutia.
I would be interested in knowing who his main customers are of his other business.
Benjamin
with respect, comments like this are part of the problem.
For years there has been a constant stream of public commentary about “technicalities”, enforcement strategy and legal process around this case in comment sections and local forums. When people publicly dissect ongoing legal disputes in that way, it doesn’t help resolve anything — it often just fuels the very procedural complications everyone then complains about.
The reality is that residents have been left living next to a deteriorating historic building for years while the situation drags on. Meanwhile the council’s enforcement case has now collapsed and the building remains in limbo.
At some point the focus has to move away from armchair legal commentary and back to the real issue: a listed building in the middle of a residential street that has been allowed to deteriorate while the process drifts.
The people who live around it deserve better than endless commentary about “getting the process right” while nothing actually changes on the ground.
For the eighth time, not the point I was making. GPT got it wrong, again.
Benjamin,
with respect, you’ve been one of the most persistent voices in this comment section on this issue for a long time. Your posts haven’t just been casual opinions — they’ve repeatedly gone into detailed arguments about the legal process and how the case should be handled.
When one person dominates the discussion around a live dispute in that way, it’s not unreasonable for others to question whether that level of commentary is actually helping the situation.
You say GPT “got it wrong again”, but the reality is that the volume of your posts has shaped a large part of the debate here. After years of this building deteriorating while arguments about process continue, residents are understandably frustrated.
Public debate is important, but when one contributor repeatedly drives the narrative around an ongoing case, it’s fair for people to ask whether that level of involvement is constructive — or whether it simply adds more noise to an already complicated situation.
Look, with respect, for the ninth time. GPT is fine as a tool, but you have to understand its weaknesses and stop relying on it to create fully generated replies like this one. 5.3 in particular prioritises consistency over concession – it does not like to admit being wrong, instead retreating to conceptual aspects, just like what you’ve just posted. Otherwise, B&H News might as well just have an AI-generated summary of the comments, and we spend our time talking to chatbots instead of each other, right?