Council launches probe into security fencing erected outside Russell Brand’s village pub that was put up without planning permission in wake of sex assault and rape allegations

Russell Brand has been hit with another investigation after sealing off his village pub with security fencing in breach of planning regulations.

South Oxfordshire District Council slammed the under-fire comic’s ‘unauthorised fencing’ after he put up the hessian-coated barriers in front of the Grade II listed pub on Sunday morning.

And they confirmed that a planning enforcement investigation is currently in progress against Brand, 48.

The afternoon before accusations published in The Sunday Times and on Channel 4‘s Dispatches saw multiple women accusing him of abusive and predatory behaviour, including rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse, between 2006 and 2013.

He has vehemently denied the allegations – but the BBC, Channel 4 and production firm Banijay have launched investigations into his behaviour, while the Met Police says it is investigating a complaint received at the weekend.

Planning permission is needed if you wish to erect a new fence if it is next to a highway used by vehicles and exceeds one metre in height or if part of the site is within the curtilage of a listed building.

And the council have confirmed that they have not yet received a planning application for the fencing.

A spokesperson told MailOnline: ‘Permission is required for the fencing that has been erected at The Crown Inn, Pishill. 

‘We have an open planning enforcement investigation which includes the unauthorised fencing. 

‘In accordance with our Planning Enforcement Statement, we cannot provide any further information at this stage of our investigation.’

Oxfordshire-based planning consultant Mark Doodes says that council officers will currently be requesting addition information from Brand to get an understanding of why and when the fence was erected.

And he says the structure is unlikely to be permitted because of the pub’s historic nature.

He said: ‘In this case, the public house is a Grade II listed building. Consequently, the means of enclosure is unlikely to be permitted under the General Permitted Development Order as it would likely involve Development within the curtilage of a listed building.

‘As means of enclosure are often relatively limited in scale, and given the complexities of the GPDO, this may have been an easy oversight by Mr. Brand. 

‘If the fence has damaged any historic fabric, such as by connecting it to the Pub itself unsympathetically, it could be seen as a criminal offence.’

The 15th century former coaching inn includes a pub garden, outdoor seating area, car park, detached barn, stable building, two-bed cottage and garage. 

To justify the fence Brand now needs to show that it was needed in the first place or submit a full planning permission.

And if he does not do this he could be prosecuted with an unlimited fine if the case is escalated to a Crown Court. 

Mr Doodes, of Mark Doodes Planning, added: ‘It will be for Mr. Brand to demonstrate to the Council why the fence is reasonably required on a temporary basis and show that the relevant permitted development right was genuinely implemented.

‘Alternatively, a full planning application including plans and expert statements, will need to be submitted to regularise any breach of planning control. 

‘The Council may approve this submission, which would then be the end of the matter. However, should it refuse this scheme, Mr. Brand would again retain the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. 

‘I advise that advice is sought from a qualified professional sooner rather than later.

‘Should Mr. Brand fail to obtain planning permission (or fail to regularise the breach in another way) and an enforcement notice be served by SODC and remain in force, he will have a set number of days to regularise any planning breach, by means of its removal. 

‘This could be as little as a matter of weeks. If this is not complied with, the Council could begin prosecution. All offences prosecuted are heard initially in the Magistrates’ Court, where fines may be imposed of up to £20,000. 

‘If the case progresses to the Crown Court, the fine may be unlimited.’

The last time Brand applied for planning permission for the pub was in 2022 – when he appealed to change the use of the garage to a recording studio.

The application – submitted by Pablo Diablo’s Legitimate Business Firm, of which he is sole director – was withdrawn in the November of the same year.

The property consultants who aided Brand with this application have confirmed they are not working on any projects for the Crown Inn.

The application stated that the pub would remain temporarily closed ‘whilst plans to refurbish the building and formulate the nature of the new establishment are put in place.

‘The intention is to re-open the public house in due course.’

While waiting for it to be re-opened they added that the pub would be: ‘occupied in part by staff working on a freelance basis for the applicant.’

They added: ‘The applicant is under extreme time pressure to start work due to the scheduled launch of a new show on 25th September that will be recorded in the proposed studio.’

Brand launched his daily show Stay Free with Russell Brand on September 28, 2022 – just three days after it was said the recording studio would be needed by.

Brand’s pub came under fire shortly after he bought it as rumours spread that he planned to turn it into a vegan diner.

The teetotal comic angered locals – although these claims were refuted by the council.

‘We’ve heard he’s planning to turn the pub into a vegan restaurant. Why would anybody want that?’ one local told The Sun.

‘He clearly never had any intention of using the pub as a pub.

‘He doesn’t even drink alcohol. Why buy a pub if you don’t like drink?’

It comes as the Metropolitan Police has said it will speak to the media outlets following their investigation, but added that at this time the force has ‘not received any reports in relation’ to the allegations of sexual assault detailed in the article or documentary.

Banijay UK, which produced Big Brother’s EForum and Big Brother’s Big Mouth in the early 2000s, revealed it had also ‘launched an urgent investigation’ into the alleged behaviour of the 48-year-old comedian who hosted the programmes between 2004 and 2006.

Former staff members who worked on the shows have claimed that Brand got them to ‘act like pimps’ by getting the numbers of women in the audience and passing notes to them from the presenter.