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.
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.
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…
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.
So what will happen to it now?