The first tenant of a restored seafront building has got itself into trouble with the council over its giant patio umbrellas.
Karl Jones opened his popular cafe at The Reading Room on Madeira Drive in November 2024, shortly after the listed Victorian building was restored by Brighton and Hove City Council.
But planning officers have warned him the large canopies he’s put over the patio don’t have planning permission – and nor do the outside bar and food prep stand.
Now, he’s seeking retrospective permission, for a period of ten years, arguing it does significantly impact the building and allows the cafe to function.
The application, written by Lewis and Co Planning, says: “As of 26 March 2026 an enforcement case has been opened by the council, against an alleged breach of planning control.
“The breach of planning control relates to the installation of canopies covering the outside seating area at the Reading Rooms Café, in addition to temporary structures to western and eastern edge of the front of the building (small serving areas for food and drink s).
“The aim of this application is to regularise the breach of planning control by gaining full planning permission and listed building consent for a period of 10 years.
“The building had fallen into poor condition and suffered long-term neglect, with the structure described as inaccessible and presenting a ‘cold and bleak appearance’.
“The building has since been reoccupied and brought back into active use as a café and restaurant. This active commercial use contributes positively to the ongoing maintenance, surveillance and viability of the listed building and supports the continued public appreciation of the heritage asset.
“The temporary coverings and associated bar and food preparation areas which form the subject of this retrospective application are lightweight and reversible in nature.
“Their purpose is directly associated with facilitating the operational requirements of the café and restaurant use. As such, the works should be considered in the context of securing the building’s viable long-term use.”
Of the outside bars and food prep areas, it says: “These structures have been introduced to support the practical operation of the venue, particularly during periods of increased seasonal demand associated with the seafront location and external seating areas.
“The facilities provide additional space for the preparation and service of food and beverages and allow the café to function efficiently.
“Importantly, the structures are lightweight, ancillary and 30 temporary in nature, and do not comprise permanent built extensions to the listed building.”
The fabric canopy is attached to the front of the Grade II listed building with anchors and supported by poles from its centre and corners, bolted to the concrete patio.
So far, one comment from a member of the public has been submitted. Unlike most other local authorities, the city council does not allow the public to see who has left comments, and their name is redacted.
The comment says: “It is clear to anyone that the canopies exclude the view of the listed, and recently restored facade and have an adverse and detrimental impact on the building and the area.
“The situation is compounded by the extension of the licensed premises beyond the interior space, presumably controlled by the lease and into external public terraces which are assumed not to form part of the lease and are not contributing to the businesses’ business rates assessment.
“There are numerous reasons why this should not be approved, not least the harm to the listed building which is now obscured from view, but also because it sets a damaging precedent for Brighton’s seafront and listed building heritage that cynical business owners can get away with circumnavigating the planning process with the confidence that planning enforcement action will not be taken due to the implicit support of local councillors, MP, and newly appointed seafront board.”
The Grade II listed Reading Room was designed as a place for residents of Lewes Crescent to read by William Kendall, who laid out Madeira Drive, and built in 1835.
There Aways a few that moan for the sake of moaning and have nothing better to do, there not hurting anyone and offering a great deal of shade when the temperatures are very high I would’ve thought very good for health and safety of its patrons.
Planning application would have taken 30 mins max, could have saved himself the aggro
Agreed! Although I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t know.
Anyone who thinks planning permission doesn’t apply to them needs to be brought to book or everyone will be at it. The Council can’t be seen to have favourites. He’s chosen to rent a listed building so he needs to respect the rules. It’s hard to even see the building at the moment with all the tat he’s put in front of it.
The listed aspects have very little to do with this particular retrospective. The positive use principle is very strong here, considering how it had been a neglected building, and the council’s own city plan. I don’t envision this having any problem here with it being granted.
Excuse me, but you have what influence over this situation to say what will happen, Benjamin TM?
It comes from an understanding of positive use principles, well-established in planning policy. I have no special influence, but I do understand how the system weighs these factors. Insight, rather than influence, Tracy.
Very well said.
Oh for God’s sake, calm down.
I love this café since it’s been opened as was sat derelict for many years and really rundown.. it’s such an improvement to the area generally and they have done an incredible job of running it .. the canopy’s really help when it’s v hot and cold / rainy and look in keeping aesthetically
If you support the Reading Room and think this is overreach by the council, submit a comment on the planning portal: https://publicaccess.brighton-hove.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=TFP3E9DMMAI00
Sounds to me like the tenant is very much putting it to ‘positive use’ – for himself & his bank balance. Its totally out of proportion to the size of the building. And it seems ridiculous that the council spent all that money renovating it (not the tenant), only for it to be completely blotted out by a massive, overbearing canopy. Surely he knew what he was getting into when he signed the lease? To now say this is essential to maintain “sustainability” of the business seems utterly disingenuous to me. And I notice that the application goes to great lengths to say how lightweight & temporary it is; but then goes on to say they want permission for 10 years 🤔
You’re right, they should have asked for the lifespan of the lease. Lightweight and temporary does mean higher risk of wearing and tear, so they may need to replace it.
I don’t care if he serves the best brunch south of Watford. That isn’t an excuse for lawbreaking. He knew the rules and he broke them. If adding outside bars and prep areas plus acres of canvas without planning permission is not taking the absolute yellow stuff, I don’t know what is. Goodness only knows what he’s planning to do with Saltdean Lido if he’s involved with that as well. This needs to be firmly dealt with before anyone else decides they can ignore the rules as well.
It totally insures the restored building and looks like a refugee camp. Could a better solution be found that creates more space but looks good? Maybe employ a good architect rather than an umbrella salesman.
It’s a fair idea if you aren’t a fan of the aesthetics, could be fairly costly, and one of the benefits of what they are using is that they can be taken down easily as non-permanent structures, which will be of note for planning permissions and for building conservation concerns.
Obsures not Insures!
I think its a such a positive addition, allows to enjoy a lovely lunch in a shade, people really do find things to moan about!!
Same. I have left a comment on the planning application supporting it.
I guess there’s an argument about what is a sunshade, and what is a permanent outdoor tent structure.
Either way, I’m happy to see it there, and that the cafe/restaurant is doing well.
It used to be a derelict building where people took a crap. The whole area now looks alive, and stunning.
That new popularity may change for the Reading Room’s out of town visitors, given the council’s recent increase in nearby parking charges.
When we take those two issues together, you don’t get the idea that local councils actually want to see things work. Instead, we just see that different departments in a bureaucratic institution no longer seem to able to talk to each other – or to reach a logical compromise that benefits the city as a whole.
That stupidity- or lack of joined up government – seems to be happening across the city boundaries right now.
In this case, it’s not my part of town, but I wish them well.
Wow someone complains and the council does something-how very odd….fix the rest of the mess on the seafront first, wash the toilets, clean the weeds, paint the railings…Socialist politics of envy at play here.
Honestly, this feels a bit overblown given the context. We’re in the middle of increasingly frequent heatwaves, and a fully exposed seafront site like Madeira Drive can be unbearably hot in direct sun. Providing shade isn’t just about comfort anymore, it’s about basic health and safety for customers and staff. The canopy might not be perfect visually, but it’s a practical, lightweight and reversible solution that helps the café actually function, especially during peak summer periods. The application itself makes clear it’s there to support the day to day running of the business and is not a permanent structural change. It’s also worth remembering that this building was neglected for years and is now back in active use, which helps fund its upkeep and keeps it open to the public. That has to count for something. Planning rules shouldn’t ignore the reality of climate change, we’re going to need more shade, not less, in public spaces. A reasonable compromise would be to allow something like this with conditions, rather than forcing its removal altogether. The councils jobs-worths should go away and do something useful.
Since so many of the owner’s friends on here seem to be suggesting that Planning Permission isn’t a thing any more, maybe it’s time to build a second property in my back garden and claim I am helping the housing situation. I am sure I can find enough friends in high places to back me and claim it’s just ‘the politics of envy’ if any NIMBY objects.
This is the rod the council makes for its own back if it has one set of planning rules for one individual and another set of planning rules for everyone else.
I mean, that’s whataboutism again. And it’s not reflective of how planning works. Bit of a silly thing to say really!
On the contrary, I think Tracey’s comment is the most relevant on here. The issue is not whether or not the canopy is any good, or whether it should be allowed, that hasn’t been decided yet, the issue is that planning regs, same as any laws or rules, need to apply equally to everyone.
Tracey just wants the same rules to be enforced for everyone – what’s wrong with that?
Thank you FFS.
Benjamin seems determined to insult everyone he disagrees with.
Nothing wrong with that…hence the retrospective planning application is the right thing to do. Should have been done beforehand, absolutely, and if it isn’t approved, it has to come down.
But Tracy claiming why can’t see just build something in her back yard and make up a benefit is a fallacious argument. Feeling insulted by calling out the flawed logic isn’t an insult, I’m afraid. One of Tracy’s trademarks, and just a bit of a silly thing to say!
Why are you assuming the owners friends are the ones making comments? I don’t know them from Adam, yet I support them.
Seems as though you’re rather on a soapbox about this. Are you sure you’re not connected somehow?
It looks nice, the place is cosy, friendly and happy.
I think it looks absolutely amazing and the use of the terrace is clever and exciting , theres a real buzz there now. In my opinion as a local resident, this business has single-handedly transformed a very run down and decaying area of Brighton Seafront, I know I live around there, it used to be an area you avoided for sure.
The canopy is not a permanent structure so there is no permanent effect or damage on the property in any way.
If planning enforcement refuse this it would be a tragedy as there is no way especially in the current financial climate that the business is viable without the use of the terrace and Al Fresco Dining , the terrace is needed and would require a canopy of course in our varied and extreme weather conditions.
A retrospective application should be made to correct the error but please planners be sensible , there is no reason to refuse this , BHCC are doing a great job in regenerating the seafront , we need great businesses like this to complement it.