Malvern Hills Bill [HL]

The 19th public session of the Malvern Hills Bill Committee reviewed proposed amendments to governance, recruitment and licensing provisions. Key points included a table to set special-resolutions thresholds by board size, tying the recruitment policy to the trustees’ objects (with potential guidance references), and whether levy-payers should be excluded from independent nominations, alongside clarifications to fencing between commons and the licensing policy under Clause 63, including references to the Commons Act. The chair adjourned to discuss with counsel and reconvene later to finalise the amendments.

The transcript records a Lords committee hearing on the Malvern Hills Bill, focusing on governance, funding, and charitable purposes: how trustees are appointed and held to account, how the levy funds the Trust, and how the Trust’s objects align with the Malvern Hills Acts and Charity Commission guidance. The promoter defends the Bill as necessary and compliant, while petitioners press for amendments to strengthen representational accountability, limit powers (like licensing, quarrying and borrowing), and ensure the levy payers’ interests are properly represented. The session concludes with agreed уваy that amendments would be considered in later proceedings.

The Lords committee discussed Clause 63 of the Malvern Hills Bill, which would allow the Malvern Hills Conservators to regulate and licence certain activities on the hills and to levy charges where appropriate. The promoters said policy should reflect the Conservators’ objects—to keep the hills open for public recreation—while covering commercial and organised activities and considering health and safety and environmental impacts, without being overly prescriptive. The committee signalled amendments to clarify scope and require regard to the Trust’s objects in identifying uses, and decided the Bill should proceed to the House with amendments.

The meeting reviewed the Malvern Hills Act’s unopposed clauses, setting out transitional arrangements to replace the current trustees with a new structure of six appointed and six elected trustees, with the constitution date to be fixed within nine months of Royal Assent. It also discussed drafting amendments on trustee recruitment and eligibility, conflict of interest rules, meeting procedures, and public access, noting that some provisions require Charity Commission approval, and highlighted outstanding actions and potential by-election costs.

During the session, petitioners argued that the Malvern Hills Conservators Bill would alter the Conservators’ public status and widen their powers. They pressed for the levy-paying area, board representation, and the bill’s scope to be redesigned so the Conservators remain accountable to levy payers and local authorities, preserving the hills as a public asset. They proposed returning the Bill for revision or amending it to reflect public-law accountability and, if necessary, deregistering or restructuring the charity to operate as a true public body.

The uncorrected transcript records the promoter’s explanation of the Malvern Hills Bill, which consolidates and modernises a series of historic Acts into a single statute, giving the Malvern Hills Trust new and updated powers to manage the hills—covering access control, by-laws, licensing, fencing, grazing, land management and rights of common—while preserving open, unenclosed land and public recreation. It also proposes a governance reform: a 12-member board with six elected and six appointed trustees, with parish links to balance levy payers’ representation with the Trust’s duties. The proceedings emphasise transitional provisions, guardrails for Schedule 4 powers limited to furthering the objects, and commitments to amendments to protect commoners and prevent unwanted development.

The transcript records a Lords Select Committee session on the Malvern Hills Bill, which would consolidate five Acts and introduce new powers for licensing activities on the hills, fencing/easements, and governance. Petitioners argue the bill is rushed, poorly detailed, risks increasing costs and limiting access for disabled users, and calls for clearer objectives and fuller consultation to protect public land; they also contest levy-area arrangements and representation. The promoters defend provisions such as Clause 63 licensing, Clause 49 fencing, and governance changes, offering undertakings on consultation, while parish representatives raise accountability concerns and potential development impacts.

Uncorrected minutes from the Malvern Hills Bill hearing record the promoter’s case for new powers, including fencing land for grazing management (Clauses 48-49), licensing of events and stalls, and other land-use and by-law provisions, with Natural England supporting grazing as a conservation tool. West Malvern Parish Council, backed by Professor Jerry Tew, objects to the Bill as drafted and urges amendments to recognise the Trust as a hybrid public authority with locally elected conservators and stronger public accountability, proposing changes to governance and curbs on powers related to fencing, penalties, and commercialisation. The session also features practical input from a grazier on hillside management, but no final decision is made in this hearing.

This uncorrected transcript records a Lords Committee hearing on the Malvern Hills Bill, focusing on governance, including trustee composition and meeting arrangements, and the Bill’s powers over fencing, licensing, by-laws, access and commoners’ rights. Malvern Town Council argues for 12 elected trustees and in-person public meetings, while the promoter defends the proposed 50/50 elected/appointed model and other powers as necessary to manage the hills, subject to safeguards and public input.

Barbara Wilkes, a Castlemorton commoner, told the Malvern Hills Bill Committee that the Bill’s fencing and grazing powers could erode historic common rights by allowing the Conservators to fence parts of CL9 (including Coombe Green) and restrict open grazing, urging stronger protections for active commoners, clearer limits on fencing (area and duration), and formal consultation on decisions affecting grazing areas. The promoter argued the powers are forward-looking, not immediate plans, and that exemptions and consultation provisions exist to safeguard rights, but Wilkes’ concerns about grazing freedom and access remain central to the petition.