Malvern Hills Bill [HL]

The Malvern Hills Bill [HL] repeals the existing Malvern Hills Acts and re-enacts them to create the Malvern Hills Trust (renamed from the Conservators) with a new governance structure of eight elected and four appointed trustees, plus a Nomination Committee and transitional arrangements to a new constitution date. It expands the Trust’s powers to manage land, regulate access, license activities, and oversee fencing, grazing, parking, byelaws, utilities and land transactions on the Hills, subject to secretary of state consent and charity law. It maintains the existing levy funding from Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils and updates administration, financial controls and public-access provisions to align with modern governance and human-rights considerations.

The evidence records proposed amendments to Parts 4–5 of the Malvern Hills Bill, including governance and drafting changes (trustee reporting duties, reintroducing the independent-members definition, and Schedule 4 reordering). It also sets out changes to enable faster, regulated fencing and securing of common land (Clauses 42–48) under a Commons Act consent framework, with a new post-start 42‑day consultation regime and related enforcement provisions, while emphasising that existing rights of common are preserved (Clause 94).

The Malvern Hills Bill would update the Trust’s governance and give it new land-management powers, including fencing on non-common land, licensing of events, stronger by-laws (with fixed penalties), and the ability to lease or licence parts of the hills. West Malvern Parish Council and Professor Tew oppose these changes, arguing they threaten local accountability and risk commercialising the hills, and they call for amendments to preserve elected local conservators and clearer public oversight. The evidence also notes Natural England’s support for grazing as a management tool and emphasises the need to balance open access with habitat protection in any new powers.

The Lords’ Malvern Hills Bill evidence session examined governance of the Malvern Hills Trust, focusing on the proposed nominations committee and the balance of elected versus appointed trustees. Petitioners warned that a 6 elected/6 appointed structure, and a committee including independent members, could undermine democracy and let non-elected trustees gain control, urging more elected representation and clearer recruitment rules (including how candidates are put forward) and considering how levy decisions are made, possibly via local authorities. The promoter defended safeguards, noting a recruitment policy for appointed trustees and defined criteria for independent members, plus a 75% special-resolution threshold for removals, and pledged to develop the recruitment framework for next week’s session.

At the seventh session of the Malvern Hills Bill committee, it indicated it is inclined to grant standing for petition 32 (the trustees’ collective petition) on a discretionary basis to hear an inhabitant on specific Bill-related points. Decisions on other petitioners (Rouse, Fellows, Cleaver and Hopkinson) were reserved, with a reasoned ruling due on Wednesday at 12:45 pm and petitioners to be invited back to present their case on petition 32, focusing on precise issues rather than broad background.

The Malvern Hills Bill aims to reorganise governance of the Malvern Hills Conservators, renaming them the Malvern Hills Trust, clarifying its charitable objects (with a Sandford principle prioritising conservation) and replacing the current board with a 12-member body – six elected by levy-payers and six appointed by existing trustees – under a new rules framework. The evidence also discusses the Charity Commission’s involvement and the Trust’s public-body status, alongside historical and boundary issues affecting trustee elections.

The evidence session explains that the Malvern Hills Bill keeps a levy-funded model for the Trust, with defined levy areas and potential contributions from councils, while acknowledging the complexity of widening the levy. It also adds powers to raise and manage money—Clause 34 on capital money, Clause 35 on borrowing with safeguards, and Clause 83’s general power to do things that further the Trust’s objects, plus Schedule 4 fundraising and partnership powers—subject to strict limits and protections for core land. Petitioners question extending the levy area, but the witnesses say changes are difficult and would require proper approvals; the Committee will continue with Parts 4–6 tomorrow.

The committee debated amendments to the Malvern Hills Bill, including: replacing the 75% special-resolution rule with a practical table of thresholds by number of trustees present; tightening the recruitment policy to align with the Bill’s objects and Charity Commission guidance; excluding levy payers from the independent nominations process; adding a specific restriction that fences between certain common land require Commons Act consent with Section 39 factors; and clarifying the licensing policy under Clause 63 with clearer criteria and consultation. They reserved judgment on several points, asked for refined drafting from counsel, and adjourned to continue discussions in the afternoon.

The evidence argued that the Malvern Hills Conservators are effectively a public body funded by a statutory levy, and that the Malvern Hills Bill could reclassify them as a charity with broader powers, risking reduced public accountability. The petitioners urged the Bill be withdrawn or substantially amended to preserve the hills’ public purpose (the natural appearance/unenclosed status), clarify the levy area and representation, and limit new powers. They proposed retaining locally elected governance and the existing electoral framework, and avoiding unnecessary expansions of authority or shifts in charity status.