As many of you will have read in the Abingdon Herald, the Kingfisher Canoe Club has been granted permission to put up a canoe storage hut on the land near Abingdon Lock – owned by the Environment Agency (it is the grassy area surrounded by trees indicated).
The Canoe Club had to leave their previous base on land owned by the army at Wilsham Road. The army will be demolishing and rebuilding their buildings on the site. Then a year or so ago the Vale of White Horse District Council backed out of a plan to allow the storage hut on meadow land near the lock.
So this plan is the last chance for the canoe club to carry on. They have a strong record of helping local residents get active on the river for over 40 years. They also do a lot to inspire and train young people.
There is still paperwork needs doing by the Vale to ensure the lease with the EA goes through. So that could still potentially hold up the project.
In the meantime , the canoe club are looking for grants and company sponsorship to help them with funding. They are a registered charity and are run entirely by volunteers with members. Please contact David Surman via davidsurman@hotmail.com or www.kingfishercanoeclub.co.uk.
Not quite true Backstreeter- the Army.does not own the site they’re on, it belongs to the VWHDC and as much as the canoe club was kicked of that site by the army, they had no power to do so, moreover so much as the army has a planning application in to revamp the site it will be dependent on them securing a long term extension on their lease, !
Excellent news for the Kingfisher club if they at last have a permanent home. Good luck to them.
I’m delighted that the Kingfisher Club are to have permanent home. This is something that should have been sorted immediately after their initial eviction.
I am less happy about the new location however. The lock island has no buildings on it and all the better for that. Surely space could have been found in the lock car parking area or close to their original building ?
Horsemouth. Your comment states that the Army had no right to kick off the Canoe Club? Please clarify. As far as I recall only the Army holds the lease to that site and no part was assigned to Kingfisher.
As I understand it su the canoe club has a concession to occupy part of the site, indeed if you look at past planning history on the site the canoe club ( and it refers specifically to the canoe club) were given permission just st a few years ago to build their storage facility, which they did and then used it and the site until two years ago the army evicted then and their storage facility
Could you direct me to this concession? Given that you state that the Army has no right to kick the Canoe club off its site, I am surprised that this wasn’t part of the lease.
Su, at present I don’t have a copy of the lease to hand, but have requested one? meanwhile take a look at this taken from the army rowing clubs recent application regarding planning history on the site? anmd I quote directly
“Planning history
The relevant planning history of the site is limited to planning permissions for:
P06/V1030: Erection of a canoe equipment store – Kingfisher Canoe Club
P94/V1699/O: New build development for the Abingdon Rowing Club, to
accommodate also the Kingfisher and Pathfinders Canoe Club. (Site area
approx. 0.4 hectares). Abingdon Rowing Club, Wilsham Road, Abingdon,”
Is this not proof enough the canoe club had rite of occupancy? Also, read this statement made as part of their design and access statement, again I quote direct
“The site is currently used by the Army’s rowing club and prior to them it was the home of RAF Abingdon’s sailing club. The change over followed the transfer of RAF Abingdon over to the Army (now known as Dalton Barracks) so for over 40 years the site has continued to provide a leisure outlet for service men and women and their families as well as a training outlet for teams preparing for regattas and competitions”
Su, this statement is very misleading in that it is not our friends at Dalton barracks who occupy the site, it is the National Army Rowing club and there-in lays the issue.
Why should a national (not local) organisation who already use rowing facilities of near-by Radley College benefit from a hugely discounted lease (£500 a year?) and then evict a much treasured local youth organisation while endeavoring to hood wink council !
Planning consent applies to land, not a specific person. It is perfectly possible, and frequently done, to apply for planning consent over land you do not own or have any interest in, you don’t even need to ask the land owner first. If planning is consented it does not give you any rights over the land and in fact a third party can then make use of the consent you paid to apply for to carry out the relevant work for their benefit. Thus the fact that the canoe club had submitted an application for planning on their original site is irrelevant.
First of all may I take this opportunity to thank all of you who have supported and continue to support all of us at Kingfisher in this long running and convoluted battle to survive. I hope you will understand that given the long and complex history of this, it is difficult to cover everything on social media posts and to give every detail of everything that has gone on, but in view of some of the queries in the above posts I felt I should try to clarify a few points. Suffice it to say that.it is well known there is much that could and should have been done by the decision making authorities that would have prevented the ensuing problems.
After all the problems that these behaviours caused, we picked ourselves up and due ,in no small measure to the positive help from Richard at the lock, his bosses at the EA and the local farmer all of whom have been fantastic and restored our faith inhuman nature that hadtaken so much of a battering.We are now focusing our efforts on our new site and making sure that there is no further obfuscation. To illustrate this I have just spent the majority of my time in the last 6 weeks emailing and phoning to ensure that the paperwork that the Vale committed to 18 months ago is actually done. Big thanks to Layla Moran and the new political leadership for supporting me in this.
As far as the Wilsham Rd site is concerned, for better or for worse ,that is water under the bridge now. However, as specific questions have come up regarding this, let me clarify. In 2013 we were lead to believe , at a meeting, that our tenure would be guaranteed by the Vale in a “licence” alongside any new lease issued to the army rowing club. In the ensuing months the Vale backtracked on this and rather than write it into the lease as a condition, they would only agree to put it that they “may” allow occupation by the canoe club. This was despite being told at both Senior Officer and Senior Councillor level (I remember clearly the names and conversations) what the likely result of this decision would be. Consequently, some 2 years or so later, when the lease to the army rowing club (the name of the leasee being changed to a national not a local organisation) was issued, the result was our eviction by that organisation. The lease specifically names the canoe club as the only organisation with which the army rowing club is allowed to share the site.
The work to find a new site has been similarly dogged with difficulties and we have bent over backwards to try to do things the right way and work with the Vale , which I think I can say has been extremely frustrating , and which I am sure you will understand I cannot go into detail here. Please believe me when I say that we have all worked non stop looking at alternative sites both council and privately owned and all have, for one reason or another proved dead ends..I think the tally is something like 28 alternatives examined in detail.
Our new site is not only the only viable option ,it is by far the best and we are over the moon , that at last , we have a site that will ensure the continuation of this community club for generations to come. Needless to say the battle is not yet over as we ensure that, this time, what the authorities say will happen, actually does so in a timely fashion. We also need to seek extra funding to complement what we have raised so far due to the more expensive build. As a final point, due to the thousands and thousands of pounds of legal work that the club has been obliged to undergo over this time as a result of all the above goings on , we would have been bankrupted, We don`t have the financial resources.Had it not been for the intervention of a top legal firm who supported us with pro bono legal services, I really don`t know what we would have done ! We are immensely grateful for that.
Apologies for the long response but I hope this clarifies things to all who have the best interests of the club at heart. We fight on.
Congratulations David. Its about time you got a home. Best of luck on getting contributions for your new home.
David, just a thought, you may want to post a link here as to how to make donations to the Canoe Club. After all the problems they have caused for you, perhaps the Army will be the first to make a contribution!
Thank you, David, for your report. I do hope that the future is clearer and more secure for you all now.
Section 4.19 of the lease states
“is permitted to share occupation with the Path Finder Canoe Club and the Kingfisher Canoe Club as mere licencees by virtue of a written licence with each of these clubs first approved by the Landlords solicitors”
So the Kingfisher canoe club had rite of occupancy under a licence approved by the Vale!
Moreover in the design and access statement submitted with the application a history of applications appertaining to this site states approval by the Vales planning officers many years ago to build a storage facility specific to the canoe club and entirely for storing canoes!
Also in the D & A statement the army specifically refers to dalton barracks etc – and how the lease transferred for RAF to Dalton Barracks, but somehow the Head lease has been altered in favour of the Army Rowing club, no mention of dalton barrack anymore, !
The section you’ve quoted doesn’t appear to create any right for the canoe club. It creates a right for the army club to license occupation by the canoe club, but no requirement on them to do so.
But once that licence was granted and approved by the Vales solicitors (as it was) the canoe club then applied for, and was given, planning permission to build storage facilities. that in itself gives them some occupancy rites, and lets not forget that the initial lease holders were R A F Abingdon, then Dalton Barracks and now for some bizarre reason the National Army Rowing club, lets also not forget that the National Army Rowing now occupy one of, if not the most expensive piece of real estate in the Vales portfolio, yet still enjoy that for the peppercorn rent originally granted to “local organisations” for the princely sum of just £500 a year!!
OK it may be too late to address the canoe club scenario, but if council are going to continue to lease that parcel for just £500 a year then hand the lease to Abingdon Rowing club who can then build a state of the art water complex and could then have the National Army Rowing club as affiliate members?
Horsemouth, presumably you’ve checked to see if the original lease has been assigned? I don’t really get that you object to the Army having the benefit of that lease. There are many local army bases that benefit from this facility. I also don’t understand your final sentence. Are you saying that the VWHDC should break the lease with the Army and then make Abingdon Rowing Club take over the whole site? Who is going to build this state of the art complex?
Anyway, best of luck to Kingfisher at their new site.
Su, i’m reading the lease dated April 21st 2015 between the VWHDC and the Army Rowing Club Association, (all 68 pages of it !)
I do object very strongly to the “army” having this lease for these reasons.
1, why should a national (not local) organisation benefit from hugely subsidized rent (subsidize by the council tax payers of the Vale) ?
2, “There are many local army bases that benefit from this facility” – that’s simply not true, ask any neighbours and they will tell you for most of the year the place is moth balled, even over this beautiful weekend its all locked up!
3,Abingdon rowing club deserves a far better site than the cramped out dated ramshackle place they currently operate from, mindful too they operate 365 days of the year and provide a valuable source of enjoyment as well as providing a worthwhile scenario for lots of Abingdon’s young ones, If the Army lease was transferred to ARC, ARC could/would set about building a state of the art complex that would take them out of the 19th century and into the 21st, as well as being an impressive gateway to Abingdon too.
They are well funded, have some very well connected members and with Lottery funding too they/ we could have a water complex to be proud of!
Don’t forget Su the Army could still enjoy those facilities, but as associate members, Why don’t you approach ARC and sound them out, they’d jump at the chance i’m sure?
Without knowing the terms of the license itself it’s impossible to know whether it created any persistent right of occupation. It could have stated that the army club could terminate it whenever they wished. The fact that the Vale approved it would be irrelevant from that perspective.
(You could argue that, if that was the case, the Vale should have refused to approve it unless it provided more security to the canoe club, but that’s a different question.)