The above was sent to me by Pauline who had found this website and thought the images may be useful.
I thank her...
If you compare these photographs of Sheppey View as it was in 1946/7 to earlier ones, it is evident, where once the beach ran right to the property & beneath the balcony, there now exists a newly created portion 'now forming part of Sheppey view' and enclosed by a picket fence... i.e. it is now part of ...ALL that messuage and Dwellinghouse. Historically the Oyster company had persistently attempted to gain control over beach, even going to the extreme of issuing false rental agreements archly written and contrived so as to appear to apply to lands for which they had no title. In the 1860 agreement said to apply at the rear of Stag, the land in question was described as seabeach and shore and bounded and abutted by ... other part of seabeach and shore and to the sea there towards the north east and north and that it abutted the Messuage and tenement and premises (said to comprise certain outhouses and buildings) called the Stag Inn towards the south east and south.
To my mind the 1946 deed describes and conveys all that comprised the Stag as shown in the 1920s photo and the phrase bounded by the rear portion of the premises now forming part of Sheppey View merely states that the beach('the premises') whose ownership was contested but uncertain... now contributes a portion to the freehold of Sheppey View and this is bounded by its remnant rear portion i.e. the remnant beach to seaward... and supposed held on rental from WOF. In actual fact I believe it can be interpreted to say... this is the minimum that comprises Sheppey View and that the possibility exists that the true boundary line could be further towards the sea. That is my humble opinion.