Stag Cottage


Sea Wall, Whitstable, Kent

And The Stag Cottage Affair
The history of this cottage - the mystery of...
how it has been divided.

And the serious consequences of this affair on the present and previous elderly occupants of...
Stag Cottage

In a legal dispute over where the Company's fishery lands lay...the Court found Stag Cottage had been extended seaward...into the... fishery.
In his report to the court...A Single Joint Expert said he had...'Found' a Joint at the supposed starting point of the hypothesised extension.

This picture shows Company workmen preparing for the construction of a wall up through the house... at the supposed line of the supposed extension, Mr Bensted, the occupant, looks on... checking progress. He would not allow access through his portion and so they (Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company) removed 'their' window to gain access.

Now on entering the bathroom there is a wall across the end
of the bath, beyond which and inaccessible are the WC and wash basin.

In 1860 ...the Company owned no land above the High Water Mark (HWM) and
the Stag Pub was over 40 feet inland at that time. In 1861 Lord Chief Justice Erle confirmed...
the Fishery's lands were only below HWM or even possibly Low Water!
Nonetheless in 2002, the Company issued a claim for possession in the County Court: ...it was successful...

The 78-year Occupant being forced to defend himself
(He had been left the property by the previous occupant, a 96year old widow...
who in the circumstances...had not known what else to do).

The Defendant consequently lost Court and other costs in excess of £30,000, furthermore...
his house is blighted... its value being greatly diminished by the blighter.

The whole claim depended on Plans produced by the Land Registry and these...
were not a correct representation of the Deeds of the respective properties.
Seemingly... of those involved, none properly understood the history, geography or physical evidence.
(they also had problems with their compass)

The Independant Reviewer criticised Land Registry procedure and the Registry has paid the occupant £2000...
as well as sending an apology from their Chief Executive Officer (A Companion of the Order of the Bath).

Following the 2004 Judgment, the Company entered with Bailiffs and constructed a plasterboard stud wall
up through the house.
The George III Fishery Act, 1793, defines the Company's lands as bounded by High Water Mark.
The Company's claims to title of the land have all cited this as root title.
The line through the cottage claimed by the Company runs through the upstairs bath,
presumably this was not the location of ...
'High Tide Marks' ...envisaged by GeoIII... or any other C.E.O.
(Fortunately the taps are at our end)

For a good understanding of the awful position look at the images below...

In 1978 The Company claimed all seaward of the mistaken line
despite their previous 1971 position

In the 1971 first registration two company agents sold the property
to the Purchasers on the basis of the line severing a small portion of the kitchen. The Vendor's solicitor was also the Company's too... and the estate agent was not only a Company Director...but also their Land Agent.
The Plan they created was sent to Land Registry with the Original Documents. Although Land Registry then Created a different,erroneous plan The Company Solicitor confirmed that it was only...a small portion of the kitchen claimed to be on Company land.
In my view that was also not correct... as previously described in the agreements link above...
the 1867 land was behind the Pub and 38ft deep measured from the HWM.
In the interval twixt then and the1930's, approx 60 years...
HWM moved closer inland and measuring back 38ft would intersect the house...This is what I believe has happened.
This is a mis-understanding of the operation of the supposed 'agreement' and... the true meaning of Beach and Sea-beach.

In truth no portion of Stag is really on land that did not belong to Flint & Co.

The Company's fishery lands in 1860 were bounded by SeaBeach ...
which at that time was... further out than shown in this...
1976 aerial photo

 

A Stud and Plasterboard 'Sea Wall' ... Aug 23 2004

The stud and plasterboard wall
was built without any of the necessary permissions.

Stag Cottage is in a conservation area and although not listed is one of the few mid- victorian storehouses still standing.

The wall has been condemmed by building control, not having passed the necessary regulations...
Nor was any party-wall agreement sought.
However, no enforcement action has been attempted.

The separate elements of the wall on different floors are not even in vertical alignment and there is no real possibility of them passing the necessary regulations.

The rear portion has no planning status and therefore no use.
Permission was sought to create a separate dwelling unit but was withdrawn... officer recommendation was for refusal.