Two independent businesses have just been evicted by the Co-Op despite a three-year campaign supported by thousands of people.
Seven Cellars and Latina in Dyke Road, Seven Dials, were finally given notice by the supermarket chain this month that their ten-year leases, which end in November, would not be renewed.
The Co Op bought the freehold to the two units in 2021, becoming their landlord. A petition started by Seven Cellars owner Louise Oliver in 2022 calling on it to let them stay has now been signed by more than 10,000 people.
The supermarket chain has told Brighton and Hove News it now plans to extend its store next door and improve the back of shop facilities.
Louise Oliver, who owns Seven Cellars, said: “The Co Op has acted with cowardice and contempt towards us.
“They were very worried about the petition I started on my kitchen table when I realised what their intentions towards us were.
“It was so amazing the support we got – what an incredible, amazing community we live in.
“But because of that it got them worried and they didn’t want to discuss anything publicly and every time we asked them what was going to happen, they said we haven’t made a decision.
“Of course they did know, they just didn’t want any more publicity.”
She said the leases being up at the end of November meant they faced moving at possibly the worst time of year for retailers, when stock levels are high.
However, after Brighton and Hove News asked the Co Op if it would be willing to extend the leases to the New Year, the Co Op confirmed it would be happy to set the eviction date for early January.
Meanwhile, Seven Cellars has found a potential new home on the other side of the road, in a building previously home to two takeaways – New Lotus and Sobs.
It has applied to Brighton and Hove City Council for a licence to sell alcohol there instead.
Too many of these Shops around.
But the other day I did notice Boundary Road Hove literally has Tesco, Sainsburys a little further up on The Shoreham Rd-but there is 2 along Portland Rd, 2 at Seven Dials
Independent Shops need to be given a Chance I think.
so your comment is basically horse cr*p, because you’ve completely contradicted yourself. make your flipping mind up.
are there too many or aren’t there? you should be championing and supporting local independents instead of saying there’s too many, when thugs like co-op (who have a a shop on either side of seven dials) have been conducting underhand tactics and shying away from the matter in hand, only to kick long term businesses out just to make more money themselves. its outrageous
There’s another coop less than a 5 minute walk away why do they need to enlarge this one and evict these two shops ,,
Because the Co-Op own the property and this is what they want to do with it!
I’m not even sure if eviction is the right word for this because as the article states the tenants leases haven’t been renewed in accordance with the lease conditions. This is a risk for any business renting a space and normal business practice.
Agree- not an eviction but just not offering a lease renewal. Plenty of empty shop spaces are available in Brighton.
Having just looked into it, an eviction is ordered by a court and nothing to do with the events above.
It is an eviction- there is an eviction notice
ChrisC loves corporations over independents, pass it on
And Dave clearly hates accurate information.
I think eviction is a bit misleading as a title here. It’s simply the end of a contract. Well, with one business finding a new place across the road, and the other having their tenancy end date negotiated until January next year, it sounds like Co-op has been reasonable beyond minimum requirements.
I think the co-op a absolutely out of order with the. Having a large supermarket just across the roundabout, the least they could do is compensate for the disruption it’s caused .
You clearly don’t understand the concept of a lease and rental agreement.
If the Co-op had terminated the leases early then yes a case for compensation could be made.
But that’s not the case here.
The leases are coming to an end and the Co-op does not wish to renew which as the property owner is within its rights
Boycort co op shops.
I already have but on the basis they are boycotting Israeli goods.
The co op you are referring to is not owned by CO OP group it’s owned by a franchise southern coop
Incorrect Mr Co Op – This is not a franchise and not part of Southern Co-Op.
I work for the Southern Co Op – it’s just a case of the Dyke Road Co Op not having their refit done yet, so they still appear green in color on the outside, which is normally an indicator of a Southern Co Op store.
If you look carefully on the outside , you’ll see a grey ‘Co Op’ sign , which mirrors the Blue ‘Co Op’ Sign on the outside of the Seven Dials one.
Thanks very much , hope this helps and have a nice day 🙂
It is a Co-op Group store. If there’s a Co-op logo (see coop.co.uk if you’re not sure), either on the fascia signage, or on a hanging sign outside, it’s Co-op Group. If that logo isn’t on the outside of the store, then it’s not Co-op Group, but a different society.
Who wrote this? The headline is very click-bait-y and poor journalism. Sure, it’s not nice for the tenants, but it’s not an eviction, they haven’t been ‘finally’ evicted – it’s just the end of a contract which Co-op are choosing not to renew, as they wish to use the space for other purposes. That, unfortunately, is business. There is nothing illegal here, there is no eviction. You could argue that Co-op should support independent businesses, but they are also a business, albeit a mutual one, and have the right to do with their property as they please. And giving the tenants a trading extension is something that they didn’t have to do, but have done so to ensure that concerns around the high stock levels at that time of year are taken into account (something, as a food retailer, they will be aware of). I’m also not sure why anyone feels the tenants should be compensated. The tenants signed the lease, the lease is expiring and Co-op is choosing not to renew it. Granted, they signed it with someone else, but no doubt there were clauses in there, which the tenants would have agreed to, allowing the transfer and / or sale of the freehold and / or lease to another party. And they would be aware that there is no guarantee, no matter who owns it, that the lease would be renewed. I hope that the tenants find other spaces to trade from and it is, for sure, a disruption to them, but it’s not an eviction. Again, that’s how these things work.
You’re wrong about this. I entered into a leasehold agreement with a landlord – a person – 10 years ago. That landlord sold the overarching lease in a cloak and dagger deal to the co-op so they are now effectively our landlords but do not own the building as you incorrectly stated. Most high street businesses are tenants. They expect their business to just continue by renewing their lease and they are protected under the tennant and landlord act of 1954. Most successful business owners do just that. This is different. The co-op slid in and took it from us. It’s legal. But morally contemptible.
Hi Louise,
Whilst I do wish you and your fellow business-owner all the best, genuinely, I never stated that Co-op owned the building. My words “whoever owns it” were related to the lease and in the context of that and that alone. It is a shame that the person you entered into the lease with sold it to a company, in this case Co-op, though they are presumably within their rights to do so and, as noted, I’d be surprised if there weren’t clauses in their agreement with the building owner and / or your lease with them that allow them to do so. I disagree in your assessment that the Co-op slid in and took it from you – they bought the lease several years ago and, from the sounds of it, you were aware in 2022 that the lease would not be renewed. I believe that’s more than fair notice, as is the extension to allow for the Christmas trading period. Whilst it’s definitely not nice, and I do have every sympathy for you, the fact is that a lease is a legal and business agreement that neither party has to renew, so long as things are done legally and by-the-book. In this case, it seems that Co-op have been very fair and now wish to use the space for their own purposes. Whether they took the lease with that intention is different of course, and that’s perhaps a more ambiguous moral question. Even if they did, there’s been several years notice of the intentions, else why would you have started the petition in 2022?
chris r, the quing of assumptions (notice how i didnt assume any gender there!)
muppet
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your input. I’m not clear on your comment, nor why you are calling me a muppet? I’m just an outsider who’s giving my views, as I am entitled to do so. You may not agree with them, but I’m unclear why you feel the need to call me a muppet if you don’t? As noted, I wish the business-owners all the best, and I hope that they can find new spaces (indeed, it seems Louise already has). I’m not commenting on the moral rightness of the situation, just outlining that a lease is a legal and business agreement that neither party is under an obligation to renew. Louise could equally have decided to move her business elsewhere, for any reason, even if the current situation was not in play.
I hope that you have a lovely day; I may not agree with you calling me a muppet, but you certainly have the right to say it 🙂
100% agree – what editor signed this off???? Here’s a few tips (free of charge this time round ;-))
1. Tone and Language Issues
• Emotionally charged language:
“The Co Op has acted with cowardice and contempt towards us.”
This is highly inflammatory and unprofessional for a press release. It reads more like a personal grievance than a formal communication.
• Colloquial and informal phrasing:
“They were very worried about the petition I started on my kitchen table…”
This may be authentic, but it lacks the polish expected in a press release.
• Grammatical and typographical errors:
• “mny” should be “my”
• “anythign” should be “anything”
• “they they” should be “they”
• “incredible amazing” is redundant; choose one.
2. Structural and Clarity Issues
• Lack of clear structure: The release jumps between topics (eviction, petition, new location, alcohol licence) without clear transitions or headings.
• Missing context: It doesn’t explain why the Co-op made its decision or what the timeline was from their perspective.
• No quotes from Co-op: A balanced press release should include a statement from both sides, especially the party being criticized.
3. Objectivity and Balance
• The release is heavily one-sided, presenting only the perspective of the evicted business owner.
• It lacks neutral framing or journalistic distance, which is important if this is meant to be a news-style release rather than an opinion piece.
4. What Could Be Improved
• Professional tone: Replace emotional language with factual, respectful statements.
• Balanced reporting: Include Co-op’s rationale and any efforts they made to support the businesses.
• Proofreading: Fix typos and grammar issues.
• Structure: Use clear paragraphs, possibly with subheadings (e.g., “Background,” “Community Response,” “Next Steps”).
Hi Liam,
This wasn’t written from a press release. Although it does appear that you might be confused as to the difference between a press release and a news article?
Or perhaps it’s ChatGPT which is confused? Either way, I will decline your kind offer to pay for future critiques of my work.
spell check then maybe 😀
either way poorly informed and written piece !!!
I would though point out that the piece does include a comment from Co Op, who I did of course approach – just not a quote, as they only provided background information, not for direct quoting. Odd, but their choice.
All that background info was included in the piece here – let me know if you need any more help with your reading comprehension:
However, after Brighton and Hove News asked the Co Op if it would be willing to extend the leases to the New Year, the Co Op confirmed it would be happy to set the eviction date for early January.
And here:
The supermarket chain has told Brighton and Hove News it now plans to extend its store next door and improve the back of shop facilities.
You’re wrong about this. I entered into a leasehold agreement with a landlord – a person – 10 years ago. That landlord sold the overarching lease in a cloak and dagger deal to the co-op so they are now effectively our landlords but do not own the building as you incorrectly stated. Most high street businesses are tenants. They expect their business to just continue by renewing their lease and they are protected under the tennant and landlord act of 1954. Most successful business owners do just that. This is different. The co-op slid in and took it from us. It’s legal. But morally contemptible.
An eviction is the court-ordered removal of a tenant from the property where they reside…… Lease Expiry however, is simply the end of an agreed tenancy term. This has been misrepresented in your article, furthermore you state that the Coop purchased the freehold of the site “The Co Op bought the freehold to the two units in 2021, becoming their landlord” – again incorrect as they simply have the overriding lease. My point is your are quoting information fed by one party rather than what I believe to be true journalism in finding out the facts and representing a balanced view for your readers to pass judgement. This is both misleading and biases in your representation.
It’s not Louise’s article Liam, it’s mine. You do seem to have difficulty with basic understanding of how this whole news process works?
I’m absolutely baffled by the quibbling of so many men below the line as to the precise legal meaning of eviction, as though that changes the basic facts of the story. Louise and Adelia are facing major disruption to the business she’s spent several years working hard to build up. Their staff could lose their jobs – it’s even possible one or both of the businesses might even close as a result.
Nobody is saying Co Op is acting illegally – but that doesn’t mean Louise and Adelia are wrong to complain about it, or that it’s not newsworthy.
oh so im a man now as well !!
I’m confused as to why you think I’m a man, or why I’m quibbling regarding the meaning of eviction? I’m just noting that they haven’t been evicted by the legal definition. The simple fact is that the lease agreement they entered into, despite being sold to Co-op, has come to an end. Co-op, as is in their right, has chosen not to renew the lease. Equally, the business-owners could have chosen not to renew at this point, even if the current situation were not in play. That’s also within their rights. It seems, from the comments above and the article, that they have known about this for a few years, since at least 2022. If that’s the case, there’s been plenty of time to plan alternative in-case the lease was not renewed. It’s certainly not nice, and I wish them the best – I don’t want them to close, nor wish any harm to them (equally I wish no harm to the staff of the Co-op, who are simply doing their jobs), but I do have the right to an opinion, and to voice that – which I am doing politely – no matter what gender I am.
Clearly nobody is suggesting the Coop is doing anything illegal, rather that they are prioritising their commercial advantage over the interests of the local community. Obviously this is common for most business, particularly national and global ones. So whilst I would not agree with any large business behaving in this way I would not be surprised. However given the history and supposed values of the cooperative movement their actions are blatantly hypocritical. On their own website they claim ‘Right by your community Co-op has been supporting local communities since 1844’, I would suspect the Rochdale pioneers who founded the Coop in 1844 would back the local shopkeepers not the Coop. So whilst they not be behaving illegally they are clearly hypocrites trading on a set of values they no longer follow. Perhaps they should rebrand as Mammons Bazaar.