Residents camping at a Brighton seaside location who are facing removal from the area have announced plans to establish an encampment outside municipal offices should they be compelled to depart.

Brighton and Hove City Council has disclosed that its specialist outreach personnel have maintained consistent engagement with individuals occupying the Black Rock area, conducting visits to 11 separate tent structures during August.

Elected members noted that certain occupants decline assistance offers while others elect to remain despite having been provided alternative accommodation.

Additional individuals informed council staff they were present on vacation.

The population occupying the site experiences regular turnover, and council representatives emphasised that the location was fully cleared in January, notwithstanding assertions that certain individuals have inhabited the area for extended periods.

The authority is seeking to intervene following reports from community members who indicated feeling insecure or expressing worries regarding disruptive conduct and possible harm to the natural surroundings.

The council maintains that those residing there are occupying land without authorisation and that sleeping at the location presents safety hazards.

Tent residents who communicated with this publication insisted they are not creating difficulties.

Michael Aplin, aged 72, returned to Brighton from Cambridge following the passing of his Alaskan malamute companion, aged 13, half a year prior.

He described having accumulated excessive memories as he stood beside a tent positioned on Black Rock beach.

The 72-year-old informed this publication that he has experienced 15 cardiac events across twenty years.

He reported spending considerable time sleeping inside a vehicle prior to joining the settlement near Duke’s Mound, where numerous men experiencing homelessness have resided for multiple months and, in certain instances, multiple years.

He indicated that those camping there maintain the beach area including disposing of refuse left by visitors, have arranged sanitation and food preparation amenities, and do not permit illegal substances or disorderly conduct.

He stated that public perception of homeless individuals typically involves assumptions about addiction or alcoholism and assumptions about uncleanliness, but that this characterisation is inaccurate with most people not matching such descriptions.

Brighton and Hove City Council issued formal notification requiring occupants to clear their possessions from the beachfront prior to 9:30am on the first day of September.

The communication stated that belongings had been discovered on council-owned land and appeared to have been abandoned.

The notice indicated that remaining items would be subject to removal and storage for 28 days, after which they would become the local authority’s property for disposal purposes.

The notification specified that occupants might incur charges up to £25 to retrieve their possessions and included contact details for the council’s housing division and the homelessness referral service Streetlink.

When this publication visited the location on Thursday, the settlement displayed orderly conditions.

Approximately six tents were present, varying in dimensions with adequate spacing between each structure.

The encampment featured chemical sanitation facilities, a heated shower unit, designated waste containers, and containers of cleansing solutions.

The inhabitants contested the characterisation that their belongings had been abandoned.

One resident observed that the items clearly remained actively used.

He proceeded to introduce fellow occupants Willie, Kieran, and additional campers who wished to remain partially anonymous.

Michael, who disclosed having received 13 cardiac stents due to significant medical conditions, maintained that the removal process was adversely affecting the collective’s mental state.

The senior resident commented that issuing eviction notices creates unnecessary psychological burden.

Individuals experiencing physical or mental health challenges require stability rather than additional anxiety generated by council actions.

This situation particularly affects Willie, who disclosed conditions including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia, meaning the possibility of relocation triggers significant distress.

On the twelfth day of August, a judicial authority issued a possession order, conferring upon the council the legal authority to direct enforcement officers to remove the collective from the premises.

However, the campers, who described mutual support among themselves, expressed reluctance to depart without resistance.

One member indicated that should enforcement officers arrive, the entire group would relocate to council offices and establish their encampment directly outside the primary entrance.

When questioned regarding universal commitment to this approach, even the more reserved group members signalled agreement.

Willie, who has spent the summer at the encampment and previously endured harsh winter conditions there, characterised the council’s approach as regarding the tents as an unwelcome situation.

He elaborated that the council’s actions effectively restricted their options.

Relocating elsewhere would simply result in repeated removal attempts.

Another member concurred that the group felt effectively invisible to authorities.

The collective maintained that none of its members genuinely wishes to remain in their current circumstances.

One male resident, who declined identification, recounted spending six weeks receiving hospital treatment after developing severe respiratory infection during winter camping at the beach.

Willie expressed that he perceived council personnel as treating inhabitants with disdain, as though their previous existence had been fundamentally different.

He suggested this situation represented a significant decline from prior circumstances.

Councillor Gill Williams, the cabinet member responsible for housing at Brighton and Hove City Council, outlined that the authority prioritises welfare considerations in addressing homelessness.

The outreach team has maintained regular contact with site residents, including visiting 11 distinct tents across two separate occasions during August.

She explained that such circumstances involve considerable complexity, with the council’s focus directed toward delivering appropriate assistance.

While declining to elaborate on individual cases, she noted that those present at the location presented diverse circumstances.

She cited specific examples including an individual who had declined support despite intervention attempts, three persons already possessing beds within supported housing schemes, and two others who indicated they were vacationing and therefore did not require council assistance.

She stated that where appropriate support could be provided and was accepted, council personnel were actively working to engage individuals and deliver such assistance while supporting transitions into secure housing.

Regarding the site’s history, she clarified that while tents had previously been pitched at the location, the resident population fluctuated significantly.

The site had been entirely cleared in January, rendering inaccurate any suggestions that certain inhabitants had remained continuously for three years.

The council bore responsibility for maintaining seafront safety and ensuring appropriate living conditions.

Additionally, obligations existed to address concerns raised by fellow residents, including those who reported feeling endangered by the site or who raised matters relating to anti-social behaviour and environmental harm.

While support had been and continued to be offered, the practical reality remained that those occupying the tents were present without lawful authority and that circumstances were neither appropriate nor sustainable.

This assessment became particularly pertinent as autumn approached and winter conditions would render tent habitation on an exposed coastal area increasingly problematic for any individual’s wellbeing.

The council’s recommendation was for site occupants to engage constructively with outreach personnel, access available support services, and cooperate with efforts to transition into more suitable and stable accommodation.