Brighton home left empty for 32 years (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Brighton home left empty for 32 years
4:30pm Wednesday 19th October 2011 in News
A home left empty for 32 years is one of almost 1,000 long-term vacant properties in Brighton and Hove.
The city council is now pleading for powers to take control of a three-bedroom house in Chester Terrace, near Preston Park, which has been unoccupied since 1979.
This is despite the owners receiving almost £30,000 to refurbish the property 18 years ago.
The council is currently seeking a public inquiry to confirm a compulsory purchase order on 87 Chester Terrace.
The authority could then develop the property even without the consent of owners, Derek Burns and Christine Davies.
There are currently 985 properties in Brighton and Hove that have been empty for more than six months - of these 86% are privately-owned.
For the full story see today's Argus.
Comments(18)
pwlr1966
says...
4:42pm Wed 19 Oct 11
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
5:05pm Wed 19 Oct 11
Servalan
says...
5:22pm Wed 19 Oct 11
I say extend this principle to bank accounts too. Anyone who's hoarded up cash and not spent it for more than 10 years should have it confiscated by the council, and given to someone else who'll spend it on fun stuff instead of just wasting it in a bank account.
joanne77
says...
5:36pm Wed 19 Oct 11
kkj
says...
6:20pm Wed 19 Oct 11
leobrighton
says...
7:05pm Wed 19 Oct 11
Servalan wrote:LOL
Why keep it at just properties though?
I say extend this principle to bank accounts too. Anyone who's hoarded up cash and not spent it for more than 10 years should have it confiscated by the council, and given to someone else who'll spend it on fun stuff instead of just wasting it in a bank account.
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
7:36pm Wed 19 Oct 11
nocando
says...
7:36pm Wed 19 Oct 11
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
7:43pm Wed 19 Oct 11
Servalan
says...
8:43pm Wed 19 Oct 11
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Yes but as well as being hilarious, as usual my satire has a serious point: since when was the state allowed to confiscate the lawfully aquired assets of private citizens simply because they're "not making good use of them".
but I have to give it to you, you are very amusing.
What are they proposing to do, bring in laws restricting the number of properties people can own? What if you have three cars and rarely drive one? Will they be bringing in a "use it or lose it" policy regarding my CD collection? Will they send my mum over to tut "Servalan, you haven't listened to that second Depeche Mode album all the way through since *1989*, I'm taking it down to Oxfam!" EH??
AmboGuy
says...
9:22pm Wed 19 Oct 11
nocando wrote:Ummm I think it was just a joke.
If you're that full of bright ideas why don'tyou go and earn your own fortune. People who don't spend are called savers? You should try it instead of frittering it away on 'fun stuff', you might be a little less bitter towards those who are obviously wiser than you.
Try to relax and don't take life so seriously mate.
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
9:25pm Wed 19 Oct 11
And there is no need for so many exclamation marks on these posts. Someone didn't pay attention at school.
Goodness, AmboGuy is back. Where are the cast from Treasure Island and the Dirty Dozen.
Servalan
says...
10:14pm Wed 19 Oct 11
And indeed his Silver Hammer?
Juleyanne
says...
6:23am Thu 20 Oct 11
concrete changing our landscapes forever it is absolutely right that long standing empty properties and brownfield sites are utilized.
Servalan
says...
9:44am Thu 20 Oct 11
And I have to use the train to get to work cos I can't afford a car. And I can't buy all the DVDs I want cos I have an acute shortage of money. Is it therefore absolutely right that the state confiscate them off the right who aren't using them properly?
Brighton_Belle
says...
2:03pm Thu 20 Oct 11
Servalan wrote:You do make me chuckle :)
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: but I have to give it to you, you are very amusing.Yes but as well as being hilarious, as usual my satire has a serious point: since when was the state allowed to confiscate the lawfully aquired assets of private citizens simply because they're "not making good use of them". What are they proposing to do, bring in laws restricting the number of properties people can own? What if you have three cars and rarely drive one? Will they be bringing in a "use it or lose it" policy regarding my CD collection? Will they send my mum over to tut "Servalan, you haven't listened to that second Depeche Mode album all the way through since *1989*, I'm taking it down to Oxfam!" EH??
I do see your point and think it's an interesting one. On the one hand, having a car/depeche mode CD you no longer use might deprive someone else of using it, but cars and CDs are not part of life's essentials. There isn't a shortage of cars or CDs, whereas there is of homes in this place.
On the other hand, who are the council to say what people can and can't do with their property and where is the line drawn? As long as the rates are paid and it's kept in a good enough state of repairs so that it doesn't affect neighbours or cause a health hazard/eyesore, can anyone really tell homeowners what to do with their property?
Hmm!
Fresh air
says...
3:22pm Thu 20 Oct 11
Servalan says...
4:37pm Wed 19 Oct 11