Scaffolding left up at empty Brighton house for 14 years (From The Argus)

AHH WELL ITS BRIGHTON AFTER ALL!ANYTHING GOES>?

Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Must be in a bad way even the squatters don't want it

outsidethewhale wrote:
Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Exactly. It belongs to Christine Davies, so anyone else who enters the property with the view of living in it rent free is trespassing, or squatting if thats what you want to call it, so the police will now come and get rid of them.

If there are people wanting to live there, maybe they could get some money together that they give her, say at the beginning of every month, and then it wouldn't be a problem. I think law abiding people call it renting.

paul76 wrote:

outsidethewhale wrote:
Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Exactly. It belongs to Christine Davies, so anyone else who enters the property with the view of living in it rent free is trespassing, or squatting if thats what you want to call it, so the police will now come and get rid of them.

If there are people wanting to live there, maybe they could get some money together that they give her, say at the beginning of every month, and then it wouldn't be a problem. I think law abiding people call it renting.

So why doesn't she rent it out then? She's had 30 years to think about it!
This sort of thing is why squatting became popular in the first place!

I wonder how many times she has paid for the scaffolding if she is paying rental on it?

has anyone actually seen/heard from Christine?

perhaps a knock on the door might be in order

The council CPOd a couple of houses a few years back which were featured in The Argus.
My elderly aunt lived near one in Ladysmith Road. It is now rented out by a letting agency but has been empty for almost a year.
The garden is a tip and last week when I visited her lots of crap was dumped on the pavement outside it.
The argus should do a follow up as my aunt says it has rarely been rented out since the council purchased it although she was not sure if the council sold it on or has been trying to rent it out.

VoxUnpopuli wrote:

paul76 wrote:

outsidethewhale wrote:
Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Exactly. It belongs to Christine Davies, so anyone else who enters the property with the view of living in it rent free is trespassing, or squatting if thats what you want to call it, so the police will now come and get rid of them.

If there are people wanting to live there, maybe they could get some money together that they give her, say at the beginning of every month, and then it wouldn't be a problem. I think law abiding people call it renting.

So why doesn't she rent it out then? She's had 30 years to think about it!
This sort of thing is why squatting became popular in the first place!

It's her property. She owns it. It belongs to her and her alone. She can do what she likes with it.

Also. the argument that evil landlords keeping properties empty as the root cause of squatting doesn't wash. Estate agents don't seem to be going out of business do they? There are plenty of free properties out there. Squatters just don't want to get off their arses and go to work to pay for their homes like the rest of us. Guess once they left the comfort of mummy and daddy they found they don't have what it takes to stand on their own two feet as the rest of humanity do.

Well I suppose Ms. Davies is the sort of person that Mr. Weatherley's new legislation seeks to protect.

its all about making the council think work is going on, scaffolding has been around a building in southfarm road worthing for over 12 years, recently some went up the front elevation, during all this time no meaningfull work has been carried out and water has come through the holes in the roof for over 20 years, the building has been empty since 1994. worthing borough council are fully aware of this but will not use their legal powers to repair the building,apparently the owner is known to them and has other derelect properties in worthing.

as to vivelavive plenty of free properties please expand on this comment, i has no time for druggies squatters and the great unwashed in general, but "free" property thats new on me or do you mean vacant properties, estate agents these days often want huge deposits, references and a guarantor, and you have to pay a fee to register with them as well, image having to pay a fee to be registered with Tesco before you spend your money in the local tesco express. I await your further comments

John Steed wrote:
its all about making the council think work is going on, scaffolding has been around a building in southfarm road worthing for over 12 years, recently some went up the front elevation, during all this time no meaningfull work has been carried out and water has come through the holes in the roof for over 20 years, the building has been empty since 1994. worthing borough council are fully aware of this but will not use their legal powers to repair the building,apparently the owner is known to them and has other derelect properties in worthing.

as to vivelavive plenty of free properties please expand on this comment, i has no time for druggies squatters and the great unwashed in general, but "free" property thats new on me or do you mean vacant properties, estate agents these days often want huge deposits, references and a guarantor, and you have to pay a fee to register with them as well, image having to pay a fee to be registered with Tesco before you spend your money in the local tesco express. I await your further comments

The presence of scaff is not about making the council think work is going on. Leaving it up on a building is the cheapest way for scaff companies to store it so my guess is she either has an interest in a scaff company that has not needed it, or the company went bust, or they are paying her a small retainer to leave it there. In terms of free properties I think s/he means there is enough accommodation to go around in the uk, which is true. There are thousands of council properties unoccupied particularly in the north of England. Anyone of us could turn up at any number of councils and ask for housing and be housed within a week if not on the same day. Of course the catch is that these tend to be areas where there is little work opportunity. One might venture to suggest that those alturistic squatters who are not working and profess to want to run craft workshops, bake carrot cake and the like to benefit the community, should relocate to these areas where people really need these sorts of life-affirming activities to save them from their dull destructive working class existence of driving cars, smoking, watching TV, eating meat, playing the lottery and committing thought crime. (Right Jason?) Their efforts would surely be more apreciated and beneficial to the wider commiunity. (Actually the Greens could give them a grant to go and spread the message in working class northern pubs and the responses could be streamed live on the internet). For those squatters who we hear are working, maybe they could think about setting aside some of their wages for rent like eveyone else. The days of the flare wearing hippie squatter who improves properties are squeling their last dying breath. Granted there are few groups who do this but they are in the minority now. Most squatters break and enter and commit criminal damage and walk off scott-free. Squatters have a choice now, a chance to change the perception. They are still able to squat commercial premises, where perhaps some landlords can absord the cost. But if they are shown to be trashing these places it will not be long before this is outlawed. Those with the hippie ideal of squatting need to come to the fore now and show that squatting can be responsible and get the nihilistic faction with the programme.

vivelavive wrote:

VoxUnpopuli wrote:

paul76 wrote:

outsidethewhale wrote:
Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Exactly. It belongs to Christine Davies, so anyone else who enters the property with the view of living in it rent free is trespassing, or squatting if thats what you want to call it, so the police will now come and get rid of them.

If there are people wanting to live there, maybe they could get some money together that they give her, say at the beginning of every month, and then it wouldn't be a problem. I think law abiding people call it renting.

So why doesn't she rent it out then? She's had 30 years to think about it!
This sort of thing is why squatting became popular in the first place!

It's her property. She owns it. It belongs to her and her alone. She can do what she likes with it.

No she can't do what she likes with it, as in keeping it empty and in a state of disrepair. Morally it's wrong when we are so short of housing in Brighton and the neighbours have to put up with such an eyesore. Legally it's wrong too, the Council can compulsory purchase housing deliberately left empty for so long.

vivelavive wrote:

VoxUnpopuli wrote:

paul76 wrote:

outsidethewhale wrote:
Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Exactly. It belongs to Christine Davies, so anyone else who enters the property with the view of living in it rent free is trespassing, or squatting if thats what you want to call it, so the police will now come and get rid of them.

If there are people wanting to live there, maybe they could get some money together that they give her, say at the beginning of every month, and then it wouldn't be a problem. I think law abiding people call it renting.

So why doesn't she rent it out then? She's had 30 years to think about it!
This sort of thing is why squatting became popular in the first place!

It's her property. She owns it. It belongs to her and her alone. She can do what she likes with it.

It is outrageous that a property has been left empty for 14 years, there should be provision for the Council to take over the property, let it to a developer who can renovate it take a charge on the property and rent it out, the balance of the rent less the interest charged on the renovations would be paid to the landlord.

Alternatively instead of being exempt from Council Tax, it should be charged additional Council Tax which increases every year>


Its a blight on the area and a selfish use of a scarce resource

As the one-time inherited owner of a family house that was left to stand empty for a few months I know that it only takes one cold winter for an unheated property to become semi-derelict, so I can easily imagine how it would have looked after 14 years. My conscience wouldn't allow me to keep hold of the old house, even though I hated the thought of selling up. The owner of the property in Chesham Place may have sentimental attachment to it but really it's selfish in the extreme to let the place go to ruin and make the neighbourhood look neglected, too. I don't agree with correspondents who say it's her property and she can do what she likes with it - no, she can't, and it's time the Council acted to assert their authority.

VoxUnpopuli wrote:

paul76 wrote:

outsidethewhale wrote:
Well there's a house that could usefully provide a home to people who need it. for about 10 minutes, then Sussex Police would turn up and beat then up for being squatters.

Exactly. It belongs to Christine Davies, so anyone else who enters the property with the view of living in it rent free is trespassing, or squatting if thats what you want to call it, so the police will now come and get rid of them.

If there are people wanting to live there, maybe they could get some money together that they give her, say at the beginning of every month, and then it wouldn't be a problem. I think law abiding people call it renting.

So why doesn't she rent it out then? She's had 30 years to think about it!
This sort of thing is why squatting became popular in the first place!

Hardly became popular because of vacant houses.

I think the role of the social media and the access to groups like 'Squatters network' that promote an 'anarchist' lifestyle attract people to wanting to be 'different'.

What utter rubbish I've read in these comments.

I have worked hard all my life and own 4 cars. One of them only gets used about 5 times a year and another about 10. Should I just give them away? I also own a small flat in Wales. It gets used a few times a year by me and a few mates and family use it. Why should I give that up because some commie is jealous.

If this own has paid all her bills then keep your snout out. Nothing to do with you.

born n breed wrote:
What utter rubbish I've read in these comments.

I have worked hard all my life and own 4 cars. One of them only gets used about 5 times a year and another about 10. Should I just give them away? I also own a small flat in Wales. It gets used a few times a year by me and a few mates and family use it. Why should I give that up because some commie is jealous.

If this own has paid all her bills then keep your snout out. Nothing to do with you.

Couldn't agree more. If someone has paid for something through their own hard graft then they have a right to do whatever they like with it. Even if that is absolutely nothing at all. Too much sense of entitlement going on here. As for all this crap about private individuals having a moral duty to provide shelter for those who choose not to work; what utter cobblers!! What about duty to protect the concept of private property. Start crossing that line and before we know it we're all living in communes working our b******s off 14 hours a day to receive a box of locally grown veg at then end of it!! No thanks!!
And just to clarify; I did, of course, mean vacant property.

vivelavive wrote:

born n breed wrote:
What utter rubbish I've read in these comments.

I have worked hard all my life and own 4 cars. One of them only gets used about 5 times a year and another about 10. Should I just give them away? I also own a small flat in Wales. It gets used a few times a year by me and a few mates and family use it. Why should I give that up because some commie is jealous.

If this own has paid all her bills then keep your snout out. Nothing to do with you.

Couldn't agree more. If someone has paid for something through their own hard graft then they have a right to do whatever they like with it. Even if that is absolutely nothing at all. Too much sense of entitlement going on here. As for all this crap about private individuals having a moral duty to provide shelter for those who choose not to work; what utter cobblers!! What about duty to protect the concept of private property. Start crossing that line and before we know it we're all living in communes working our b******s off 14 hours a day to receive a box of locally grown veg at then end of it!! No thanks!!
And just to clarify; I did, of course, mean vacant property.

So you wouldn't mind living next door to a place that has had scaffolding around it for 14 years, then? Just so long as the owner has "paid all her bills".

You couldn't make this up,because nobody would believe you!

runnergirl wrote:

vivelavive wrote:

born n breed wrote:
What utter rubbish I've read in these comments.

I have worked hard all my life and own 4 cars. One of them only gets used about 5 times a year and another about 10. Should I just give them away? I also own a small flat in Wales. It gets used a few times a year by me and a few mates and family use it. Why should I give that up because some commie is jealous.

If this own has paid all her bills then keep your snout out. Nothing to do with you.

Couldn't agree more. If someone has paid for something through their own hard graft then they have a right to do whatever they like with it. Even if that is absolutely nothing at all. Too much sense of entitlement going on here. As for all this crap about private individuals having a moral duty to provide shelter for those who choose not to work; what utter cobblers!! What about duty to protect the concept of private property. Start crossing that line and before we know it we're all living in communes working our b******s off 14 hours a day to receive a box of locally grown veg at then end of it!! No thanks!!
And just to clarify; I did, of course, mean vacant property.

So you wouldn't mind living next door to a place that has had scaffolding around it for 14 years, then? Just so long as the owner has "paid all her bills".

Yes. If you don't like it, take it down yourself, or move.

Funny comments on here, know George (restoration man), Kevin McCloud (grand designs) and Kirstie and Phil would be greatly upset by this and I think it is a shame, this I'm sure will be a beautiful building in what is generally a beautiful city, buildings need to be occupied not only to make sense of them but in order for them not to become run down, people of Brighton should keep there city great, not a run down slum, seize they house and give it to someone more capable of doing it and Brighton proud. The fact they can't even maintain a garden shows there out of their depth.

Also,why on earth would you want to go to Wales when you live in Sussex???

ps. watch the series of programmes under "great property scandal" if still available on 4od will open your eyes on the significant issue of these "empties"

Think more of these properties available = cheaper house prices = less people on streets / squaters..........