Brighton community garden under threat (From The Argus)

They will have to find somewhere else to skin up.

Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Angryoldman wrote:
They will have to find somewhere else to skin up.

Oh dear...., the comments section on this site is predictable if nothing else.

"A new community garden is under threat of destruction - before it has even opened"

Don't they mean "before the land has been occupied by trespassers"?

sussexcoastjim wrote:
Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

They are not trespassing......

again the self absorbed, self righteous, angry bigots and creeps are commenting..

sussexcoastjim wrote:
Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves?
Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

Where has this obsession with a 'community garden' originated from exactly? Brighton has numerous public parks not to mention the larger ones such as stamner. the city is sandwiched between miles of open coast to the south and the sprawling south downs to the north.

Surely a community garden is the nearest public park which communities surrounding that park use and if they wished to do so could apply to the local authority to use parts of it to grow their own produce etc.

What doesn't make sense to me is why a group of squatters / activists (whatever their preferred title) occupy private land in the middle of a city centre that was until recently used as commercial property and will continue to be used for these purposes insist on using the 'community garden' as an excuse for the occupancy.

Stripes wrote:
Where has this obsession with a 'community garden' originated from exactly? Brighton has numerous public parks not to mention the larger ones such as stamner. the city is sandwiched between miles of open coast to the south and the sprawling south downs to the north.

Surely a community garden is the nearest public park which communities surrounding that park use and if they wished to do so could apply to the local authority to use parts of it to grow their own produce etc.

What doesn't make sense to me is why a group of squatters / activists (whatever their preferred title) occupy private land in the middle of a city centre that was until recently used as commercial property and will continue to be used for these purposes insist on using the 'community garden' as an excuse for the occupancy.

Once again opinion before information. Read the article again, it's not about Taj, it's about the plot that's been vacant for over a decade behind the Earth and Stars.

A new community garden is under threat of destruction?

Don't think so

The Baron Pepperpot wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote:
Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

They are not trespassing......

THEY ARE TRESPASSING!!!

Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse.

Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort.

By law, Trespass for mesne profits is a suit against someone who has been ejected from property that did not belong to them. The suit is for recovery of damages the trespasser caused to the property and for any profits he or she may have made while in possession of that property.

For a trespass to be actionable, the tortfeasor must voluntarily go to a specific location, but need not be aware that he entered the property of a particular person. If A forces B against his or her will onto C's land, C will not have action in trespass against B, because B's actions were involuntary. C may instead claim against A. Furthermore, if B is deceived by A as to the ownership or boundaries of C's land, A may be jointly liable with B for B's trespass.

In most jurisdictions, if a person were to accidentally enter onto private property, there would be no trespass, because the person did not intend any violation.

If a trespass is actionable and no action is taken within reasonable or prescribed time limits, the land owner may forever lose the right to seek a remedy, and may even forfeit certain property rights.

Stripes wrote:
Where has this obsession with a 'community garden' originated from exactly? Brighton has numerous public parks not to mention the larger ones such as stamner. the city is sandwiched between miles of open coast to the south and the sprawling south downs to the north. Surely a community garden is the nearest public park which communities surrounding that park use and if they wished to do so could apply to the local authority to use parts of it to grow their own produce etc. What doesn't make sense to me is why a group of squatters / activists (whatever their preferred title) occupy private land in the middle of a city centre that was until recently used as commercial property and will continue to be used for these purposes insist on using the 'community garden' as an excuse for the occupancy.

Totally agree with you matey!

It's PRIVATE PROPERTY, and securely fenced off, I checked half an hour ago!

The only way they will get in is by pulling fences down and trespassing, and I hope they are evicted if that happens.

There is NO NEED FOR a garden here, there is plenty of space to sit and read a book etc at the Brighthelm centre garden, all of about 100 feet away UP THE SAME ROAD!!!!
Did you get that? 100 feet away, literally 20 seconds walk up the same road!!!!!!!

Or walk 100 metres up the hill, and you have a large amount of green grassed space in the St Nicholas Churchyard which the public use ALL the time.

This "garden" has nothing to do with community, and everything to do with the selfish actions of a bunch of people with an axe to grind, plain and simple.

EVERYBODY in Brighton apart from them it seems, knows this is the case.

There is PLENTY of green space in Brighton, plenty of libraries, community spaces available, so STOP trying to fool is all with your bullsh*t.

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

Stripes wrote: Where has this obsession with a 'community garden' originated from exactly? Brighton has numerous public parks not to mention the larger ones such as stamner. the city is sandwiched between miles of open coast to the south and the sprawling south downs to the north. Surely a community garden is the nearest public park which communities surrounding that park use and if they wished to do so could apply to the local authority to use parts of it to grow their own produce etc. What doesn't make sense to me is why a group of squatters / activists (whatever their preferred title) occupy private land in the middle of a city centre that was until recently used as commercial property and will continue to be used for these purposes insist on using the 'community garden' as an excuse for the occupancy.

Once again opinion before information. Read the article again, it's not about Taj, it's about the plot that's been vacant for over a decade behind the Earth and Stars.

More of a question posed than an opinion but moving on...

It may be vacant but it's also private property.

If the 'community gardeners' have approached the landowners requesting temporary use in return for clearing up the site then there can't be any complaints (although they will probably be aware of what happened down the road and not grant such a request). Has anyone lobbied the local MP to approach the developers and find out what their plans are?

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote:
Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves?
Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

So if I have a car, or a TV, or a fridge or indeed any other privately owned asset and I don't use it for 14 years, do other people have the right to take it over and use it ?

If they want the land they should buy the land. Simple as that.

Fight Back wrote:

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote:
Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves?
Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

So if I have a car, or a TV, or a fridge or indeed any other privately owned asset and I don't use it for 14 years, do other people have the right to take it over and use it ?

If you'd left it for fourteen years untended at on the corner of the street, what do you think?

Rita Snatch wrote:

The Baron Pepperpot wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote: Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

They are not trespassing......

THEY ARE TRESPASSING!!! Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort. By law, Trespass for mesne profits is a suit against someone who has been ejected from property that did not belong to them. The suit is for recovery of damages the trespasser caused to the property and for any profits he or she may have made while in possession of that property. For a trespass to be actionable, the tortfeasor must voluntarily go to a specific location, but need not be aware that he entered the property of a particular person. If A forces B against his or her will onto C's land, C will not have action in trespass against B, because B's actions were involuntary. C may instead claim against A. Furthermore, if B is deceived by A as to the ownership or boundaries of C's land, A may be jointly liable with B for B's trespass. In most jurisdictions, if a person were to accidentally enter onto private property, there would be no trespass, because the person did not intend any violation. If a trespass is actionable and no action is taken within reasonable or prescribed time limits, the land owner may forever lose the right to seek a remedy, and may even forfeit certain property rights.

it's amazing what you can copy and paste from the internet that makes you sound knowledgeable, doesn't make you an expert though!

I can't really see any problem here. If it gets re-developed then people will have to move on. These people are doing no harm. Actually I can't see why anyone needs to go to the length they have on this forum to rubbish people who are doing no one any harm. It's the usual bin-fest of the urban construct.
Password:
Daily-Mail (actually it was skin-hate... same thing really)

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote: Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves? Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

The owners have been trying to get permission to build a large number of apartments, office space, and retail units (cafe/restaurant, shops) there since around 2001.

"Mixed use development accommodated on 6 floors consisting of 5 studio flats, 24 one-bedroom flats, 10 two-bedroom flats and 1 three-bedroom flat, 7 office units (Portland Street), 4 retail units (Church Street) and 21 carparking spaces. Resubmission and revised scheme following withdrawal of application BH2006/01813."


There have been 6 or 7 planning applications to date which have been mostly rejected by planners.

It is not through lack of them trying to develop a PRIME city centre site and maximise profits (they did have plannin for offices and retail), but wanted residential too, that's been the sticking point to the site being empty!!!


Planning App No.s :
BH2007/01058
BH2006/01813
BH2003/01193/FP
BH2002/00211/FP
BH2002/00316/NEW
BH2001/02823/FP
BH2001/02739/FP

I hope that they do something with it soon, but it is still PRIVATE PROPERTY and is theirs to do with as they please.

It has nothing to do with ANYBODY else in Brighton.

I think they could do with a sainsburys there. Any objections?

chipmunk77 wrote:

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote: Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves? Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

The owners have been trying to get permission to build a large number of apartments, office space, and retail units (cafe/restaurant, shops) there since around 2001.

"Mixed use development accommodated on 6 floors consisting of 5 studio flats, 24 one-bedroom flats, 10 two-bedroom flats and 1 three-bedroom flat, 7 office units (Portland Street), 4 retail units (Church Street) and 21 carparking spaces. Resubmission and revised scheme following withdrawal of application BH2006/01813."


There have been 6 or 7 planning applications to date which have been mostly rejected by planners.

It is not through lack of them trying to develop a PRIME city centre site and maximise profits (they did have plannin for offices and retail), but wanted residential too, that's been the sticking point to the site being empty!!!


Planning App No.s :
BH2007/01058
BH2006/01813
BH2003/01193/FP
BH2002/00211/FP
BH2002/00316/NEW
BH2001/02823/FP
BH2001/02739/FP

I hope that they do something with it soon, but it is still PRIVATE PROPERTY and is theirs to do with as they please.

It has nothing to do with ANYBODY else in Brighton.

Except the people who live near by who must keep objecting to the planned development I suppose.
Do you have any idea how the planning procedure works? It doesn't look like it to be honest.

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

chipmunk77 wrote:

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote: Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves? Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

The owners have been trying to get permission to build a large number of apartments, office space, and retail units (cafe/restaurant, shops) there since around 2001. "Mixed use development accommodated on 6 floors consisting of 5 studio flats, 24 one-bedroom flats, 10 two-bedroom flats and 1 three-bedroom flat, 7 office units (Portland Street), 4 retail units (Church Street) and 21 carparking spaces. Resubmission and revised scheme following withdrawal of application BH2006/01813." There have been 6 or 7 planning applications to date which have been mostly rejected by planners. It is not through lack of them trying to develop a PRIME city centre site and maximise profits (they did have plannin for offices and retail), but wanted residential too, that's been the sticking point to the site being empty!!! Planning App No.s : BH2007/01058 BH2006/01813 BH2003/01193/FP BH2002/00211/FP BH2002/00316/NEW BH2001/02823/FP BH2001/02739/FP I hope that they do something with it soon, but it is still PRIVATE PROPERTY and is theirs to do with as they please. It has nothing to do with ANYBODY else in Brighton.

Except the people who live near by who must keep objecting to the planned development I suppose. Do you have any idea how the planning procedure works? It doesn't look like it to be honest.

It has absolutely nothing to do with objections from local people, and more to do with planning policy for the central zone.

And for your info, I know EXACTLY, in intricate detail, how the planning and appeal process works having been in successful building & property development full time for well over 20 years in a number of areas of the UK, thanks all the same.

Total WOFT~~When are these people gonna get into their stoned heads that they are NOT going to occupy a valuable piece of commercial real estate in the centre of Brighton? That's it!~~
Maybe they should concentrate their excess energy into a more positive activity? Like: against coal, oil, traffic, pollution and care of children and the vulnerable~~

Wh don't they ask Nicholas Hoogstraten if they could have a bit of His land to turn into a Communit Garden

ANOTHER tesco's is lined up for the site
;p

It will probably be a lot better for wildlife to leave the site as is rather than turn it into a cultivated plot. Culivated flowers attract some insects - but nature often provides a more natural balance if left alone. Set aside is used as a way to attract wildlife.

deve wrote:
It will probably be a lot better for wildlife to leave the site as is rather than turn it into a cultivated plot. Culivated flowers attract some insects - but nature often provides a more natural balance if left alone. Set aside is used as a way to attract wildlife.

Totally agree why do people always feel the need to interfere, the field next to the wild park used to be teaming with butterflies, but the council has just cleared the grass that lay their eggs and put up a barbed wire fence

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

Fight Back wrote:

dhamallamafarmer wrote:

sussexcoastjim wrote:
Emphasis on the word activist!!!!! landowners have every right to use their land as they see fit..... What gives these "greenies" authority to trespass on private land.....

Don't you think that the fact that the land has been a derelict plot for 14 years means that they really don't care about it all that much and they only want to keep it as an asset for reasons best known to themselves?
Have you actually seen it? there's some large sheets of plywood that are a shambles, chain link fencing that's been pulled all about and the whole site's alive with brambles. If the owners won't do anything about it why shouldn't residents take it upon themselves to tidy it up? it's a plot of land, they're not stealing it or depriving the owners of its use, they just want to put it to good use, what's your problem with that?

So if I have a car, or a TV, or a fridge or indeed any other privately owned asset and I don't use it for 14 years, do other people have the right to take it over and use it ?

If you'd left it for fourteen years untended at on the corner of the street, what do you think?

If I'd secured it then I would expect people to keep their grubby little mits off them.

I don't know whether the gardeners really have intentions on this site or it's just ploy by the developer to put pressure on the Council.

prestonrevoltII wrote:
again the self absorbed, self righteous, angry bigots and creeps are commenting..

Wonder what side you are talking about?

The word bigot suggests the opposition, but the whole sentence is also a suitable description for 'activists/antis'.

Walked past there last night, I see these layabouts have now taken down (previously it WAS secured) a section of fence and installed a 6 panel front door in the fence with a "community garden" sign over it.

I hope the developers and The Police throw the book at them for this act of blatant vandalism!

The Baron Pepperpot wrote:
I can't really see any problem here. If it gets re-developed then people will have to move on. These people are doing no harm. Actually I can't see why anyone needs to go to the length they have on this forum to rubbish people who are doing no one any harm. It's the usual bin-fest of the urban construct.
Password:
Daily-Mail (actually it was skin-hate... same thing really)

It would be great if they really did do no harm, but did you see the fuss that was caused after Tesco allowed them to stay on their Lewes Road land before they developed it? they had to re-paint the fence everyday to cover up the scathing graffiti that was left!

Also my friend who works for Sainsburys was harassed by the protesters there as he walked home from work, just for working there. 'These people' are not harmless.