Definitive Map showing no Public Right of Way to Riverside

Analysis of the 1991 Open Space Agreement and Public Access Dispute at Brentford Dock

Final AI-generated reports synthesizing anonymized comments from a Brentford Docks WhatsApp group. Its purpose is to keep residents informed regarding the 'open space agreement.'

Last update 8th February 2026

Based on the concerns and legal issues raised in the sources, here are 12 pertinent questions created by AI for residents to ask the Dock Board (Feb 8th)

1. Transparency and Documentation: Why was the 1991 Open Space Agreement "lost" for over 30 years, and can the Board provide immediate copies of the 1978, 1990, and 1991 agreements to all shareholders for independent review?

2. Financial Impact: What is the estimated total cost for proposed remedial measures—including new gates, increased security patrols, and CCTV—and will these costs lead to a rise in service charges?

3. Legal Validity: Has the Board obtained a definitive legal opinion (e.g., from a King’s Counsel) on whether the 1991 agreement is still binding if it was never registered with the Land Registry, or does the "clean slate" rule apply to residents who bought their leases without notice of this covenant?

4. Operational Security: How does the Board plan to practically distinguish between residents and visitors, and what is the enforcement strategy for clearing non-residents from the estate once daily access hours end?

5. Negligent Misstatement: Why was the "Open Space" status not disclosed in Management Packs (LPE1 forms) to those who purchased properties recently under the impression they were moving into a private, gated estate?

6. Alternative Access Models: Has the Board formally investigated the feasibility of a "Syon Park" style membership scheme, where non-residents pay a fee or sign up to help cover the costs of maintenance and security?

7. Council Contributions: Given that the London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) is mandating public access, what financial contribution is the Council making toward the increased cleaning, gardening, and "policing" of the estate?

8. Conflict of Interest: How is the Board ensuring that Directors who hold roles in LBH or external advocacy groups are recusing themselves from decisions where their interests may conflict with those of BDL shareholders?

9. Infrastructure and Accessibility: Why do the current proposed access points lack provision for disabled users or pushchairs, and if modifications are required, who will pay for them?

10. Data-Driven Evaluation: What specific evidence exists from the period since the gates were originally installed to show they provided a measurable improvement in security or a reduction in maintenance costs?

11. Communication Strategy: How will the Board improve democratic communication with residents, specifically by holding meetings at times that do not exclude those with full-time work or childcare responsibilities?

12. Mitigation of Anti-Social Behaviour: What are the concrete plans to protect residents from the "chaos" of late-night gatherings and the misuse of estate amenities, such as the BBQ area and the Mooring Basin?