The history of ownership is not that obscure; the Land Registry however are amongst the last people able to be informative on the matter. They only have such records as people voluntarily give them and much land remains unregistered. Land in this vicinity only began to be registered in the 1960’s and later.British Waterways created nothing so far as the initial entry from the Thames is concerned, this was cut (by unknown parties) in the mid 18thC, to short-cut the first loop in the river Brent, at least 50 years before the Grand Junction Canal Company came on the scene.The GJCC under the powers of their Act purchased such lands as were needed to continue that work of straightening the wriggly river, speeding up access to their canal. These fragmentary portions are readily identified on maps. As to ownership of the remaining and original riverbed not purchased by the GJCC, my researches demonstrate that riparian rights applied to the river Brent, so that most of the river was in the ownership of the Manor (James Clitherow at the time), although whether that applied beyond the Manor bounds into Ealing is unknown (Ealing parish began just east of where the Thames Lock was subsequently built).If riparian rights did not exist in the easternmost (Ealing) section so far as the Thames, then ownership would have vested in the City of London as parcel of the Thames (being tidal waters). By agreement between the City of London and Queen Victoria after a major squabble over ownership, this became vested (in 1857) in a body called the Thames Conservators, the latter day successors of whom are the Port of London Authority.Early maps show that the first neat cut of the GJCC became eroded in time so that the whole river/canal became wider. Under authority of the Thames Conservators, owners of the northern banks were licensed to embank the river bed, so creating protected edges to their property with a little extra doubtless gained. That was the case with T. Rowe in 1882, who thus became the owners of the bank and all behind it.In the early 1960’s the Greater London Council instigated piling all along the Thames and tributaries, as a measure of flood control, and British Waterways were probably the ones given the task for the river Brent, giving rise to the steel piling we see today. Control over upkeep of these walls vests now in the Environment Agency, who hold the riparian owners responsible. (So when, for example, Heidelberg’s piled walls began bulging out under new building alongside, it was Heidelbergs who were held responsible for repairing them at huge cost).This area of land was subsequently purchased by the Council, with laudable ambitions to preserve and develop it for marine industry. Tragically these never came to fruition, so that the land was allowed to lie fallow for decades until the present developers came along with the alternative residential scheme. It was during this period that ‘The Vandal’ and others came and occupied parts. By law, uncontested real occupation of land for twelve years will result in extinguishment of original title. That still applies today in respect of unregistered land.Leaving argument to ‘The Vandal’ on whether the acts of ownership sufficed in law to extinguish the former unregistered title in favour of those occupying, things became messy when the Council negotiated to sell the property to Hither Green. It was only at the point when voluntary first registration was sought (and BW notified as supposed adjacent statutory body) that BW came in with objections, claiming to own the actual wall itself along with the riverbed. There is quite simply no conceivable basis for such an unsubstantiated claim, given the lie as it is, by the wealth of available evidence.However, rather than get involved in expensive legal battles to no real observable benefit, Hounslow and BW drew up an agreement that BW owned the wall, so that the land sold to Hither Green did not include it. This is a favourite method of BW for obtaining land, which has proved effective everywhere.It is heartening however, to see that the PLA have at last bestirred themselves in order to assert THEIR rights of ownership of the riverbed as against the BW claim, and the matter is going to the Land Registry Adjudicator for determination next year.Eileen is correct that, having dedicated the riverside edge as a public path while they were the previous owner of all this land, the Council are liable to maintain it for that purpose regardless of ownership. This was, by the way, a new public path that had not existed before - the towpath built by the GJCC ran along the south bank only.
Nigel Moore ● 6130d