You may have seen some media stories today about an estate that was gifted to us in a will.
We are enormously grateful to those people who are kind enough to leave money and other assets to us in their wills and we always do our best to be respectful of their wishes. On the rare occasions when it is just not possible to comply with some or all of the wishes of the deceased, then we will work with their families and executors to reach the best outcome that will benefit wildlife and honour the memory of those who have passed away.
When people leave us a legacy, our Trustees have a duty to ensure that any decisions relating to them are made in line with our charitable objectives, safeguarding the legacy’s value, assessing its best use and, of course, keeping in mind the wishes of the person leaving the gift.
Having held for many years the land left to us by Mrs Rhead we have concluded that it has very little current or potential value for wildlife and therefore we have an obligation to consider other options. We have been doing this in consultation with the appropriate people, including the person who acted as executor of Mrs Rhead’s estate. They are satisfied that selling the land in order to buy and maintain other land that has greater wildlife benefits would be in keeping with Mrs Rhead's wishes. The land is allocated for development in the draft Local Plan and the final decision about whether it should be built upon will be made by Cheshire East Council in accordance with the local planning process.
Thank you for the clarification. I did wonder if there was more to it than the media led us to believe. Admittedly the wish that the "the land should never be built on" seems to be being ignored but I'm sure that this was not the only stipulation made in the will If the executor and family of the deceased are happy that the spirit of the legacy is being upheld then it seems reasonable to take this course of action.
What about the wildlife that has already made a home on the land, what will become of them?
I am sorry you feel that way, Sam. As I explained above, we explored this opportunity in consultation with somebody who acted as executor to Mrs Rhead's will. Our intention , if this goes ahead, will be to ensure wildlife benefits as a result.
As I have read Mrs reades wish was that "the land should never be built upon" those were the wishes of a dying woman, as a result of this complete lack of respect myself and my partner will no longer be renewing our membership and friends who have seen the article have also said the same thing, it is bad enough that the government are persecuting innocent animals, I never thought i'd see the day that a charity that is supposed to be protecting our wildlife would also be so heartless!
Thanks for setting out the facts so clearly, Martin. This approach will clearly achieve the most for wildlife, which I'm sure was Mrs Read's hope.