Denial of the democratic process at what cost to Malvern.
Urgent action needed! (scroll down for more info)
Malvern Hills and Commons
MHT governed by 5 Acts of Parliament
• 5 Acts of Parliament, 1884, 1909, 1924, 1930 and 1995
They are based on 4 key principles called objects:
• Preserve the natural aspect (1924 Act s.21).
• Protect and manage trees, shrubs, turf and vegetation (1909 s.6)
• Prevent unlawful digging and quarrying (1924 s.21, 26)
• Keep the Hills open, unenclosed and unbuilt on as open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the Public.(1930 s.3)
Our concerns centre on the Governance of MHT:
There is a determination to submit the Bill to Parliament by 27 November 2024.
• Since 1 st Nov 2023, there have been a number of new Trustees to the Board with a new CEO earlier this year.
There seems undue haste with rushing a Bill. Significant and substantial changes are being railroaded through.
General Power will allow MHT to:
-move away from its intended purpose
-allow uncontrolled increases in the levy
-remove Trustees if they disagree with policy
-become a trading company/commercially oriented yet still funded by the levy which is illogical
A General power plus other substantial changes were first proposed by the Conservators in 1992/1993 in the run up to what became the 1995 Act. Fortunately for us, such controversial changes had to be dropped before what became the 1995 Act was allowed to proceed.
Change Natural Aspect (Ist object)
-first and most crucial of MH objects
-want to replace it with a different phrase which will not be the same thing at all.
3rd Act 1924: imposes a duty upon the Conservators to preserve the Natural Aspect of the Hills’
The phrase ‘natural aspect’ has served the community well and any replacement could bring unknown problems and unforeseen consequences.
Indeed the phrase is used in current planning applications that MHT are invited to comment upon.
We, MEPG are of the view that the proposed revised wording of the objects of the Trust involves potentially radical changes in the way the Trust can operate in the future. This is effectively a brand new Bill which could change the face of Malvern.
The 1884-1995 Malvern Hills Acts have served the Malvern area well over the last 140 years plus and this will be placed in jeopardy should the revised wording of the objects clause be amended in the way proposed by the Trust. A sentiment expressed in the following (by Hansard 1993)
‘Such changes are contrary to the original set objects and will change the nature of the Commons, as will a change in unrestricted access’ (Hansard 1993)
‘If the bill goes through in its present form, it is possible, and even probable, that the Malvern Hills will be ruined forever’(Hansard 1993)
Change of open Public access to MHT land (4th Object)
Power to secure and fence the Commons
-power to purchase land which will NOT be for public access
According to the 1930 Act, MHT:
‘‘they shall at all times keep the Malvern Hills unenclosed and unbuilt on as open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the public;’ 1930 s.3
What is being proposed runs contrary to what the Malvern Hills Conservators were originally set up in 1884.
It could become fenced off with large parts inaccessible to the public for substantive periods of time for example.’ (Hansard 1993)
The reason that some quotes from Hansard are so pertinent is that there are uncanny parallels between what the Conservators were seeking in 1993 (run up to 1995 Act) and what is being proposed now. 30 years may have gone by, but the comments made then, as recorded in Hansard 1993, are no less relevant today than they were then.
That was the first time that the Conservators were seeking a General Power and a power to fence off large tracts of land. The request for such powers was refused.
Total lack of transparency and democracy
No details of the Private Bill are, as yet available to the Public
- When an Officer was asked at Board Mtg in January 2024 as to when the full details of the Bill would be available, the response was that it was quite thick, 70-80 pages long and the public wouldn’t understand it!
MHT could lose its public body status, become full charity yet still able to claim levy, with no accountability!!!
‘No taxation without representation’
‘I shall need to know much more precisely just why the conservators need these extra powers.’(Hansard 1993)
The lack of transparency and trying to hide the fact that it is Public body, (goes to the heart of the criticisms levelled at in the St Ann’s Well affair) is reminiscent of the St Ann’s Well affair from 2011 (2009-2011) when an Observer remarked:
‘It is completely unacceptable that a Public body..should seek to avoid reasonable and fully justifiable questions about the legitimacy of their decisions and the legality of their operations’
This could equally well be written 12-13 years later!
By trying to hide their duties as a Public Body, they are potentially open to the same criticism that accompanied the St Ann’s Well issues.