A couple of hours ago I posted a short statement in response to some media stories about an estate that was generously given to us I've asked Andre Farrar who has worked for the RSPB for over 30 years and for much of that time in the North West of England to reflect on the difficult and challenging decisions that any responsible charity has to take.
Over my many years working for the RSPB some of my most moving and inspirational moments have come when I’ve had the chance to meet individuals who are considering leaving us a legacy – a gift that after they have gone will help to ensure nature has a safer future.
I never met Mrs Rhead – although I like to think she may have been in the audience when I hosted RSPB film shows in her home town of Congleton many years ago. The land bequeathed to us over a decade ago was a generous and precious gift. The piece of land in Someford came with the wish that the land be looked after to benefit wildlife – but in the decade since circumstances have changed. The land has now been identified in the draft Local Plan as an area for housing development and it has become clear that the wildlife value of the land in question is limited with little real scope to improve it.
So what to do?
We have always believed that Mrs Rhead’s intention was that her gift should be used to benefit birds and wildlife and that is a view that has been supported by the individual who acted as executor to her will – but of course we can never actually know, we have to take a judgement based on new circumstances.
And this isn’t an optional choice – when we are left a legacy our Trustees have a duty to ensure that any decisions 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.
Taking a decision to sell this land is not one we are taking lightly and ensuring that we are talking to the right people has been an essential part of our consideration but having held the land left to us by Mrs Rhead for several years, we have now concluded that our obligation to use this gift in the best way to save nature means we need to consider other options so that her precious gift can be directly used to save nature.
We have not yet concluded that process.
After satisfying ourselves, as best we can, that we can honour the spirit of Mrs Rhead’s gift – we are taking our lead from the draft Local Plan and it is important to be completely clear – the final decision on whether it should be built upon will be made by Cheshire East Council in accordance with the local planning process – and we will respect that decision.
We have talked to the Parish Council who – inevitably – reflect the strong views of local people and we want to continue those discussions calmly and constructively.
Our gratitude to people who are kind enough to leave money or other assets to us in their wills is profound – and we will 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.
While understanding the much larger benefits for nature conservation that selling this land may bring, I do think the RSPB is handing a gift to its detractors, particularly those that have reason to fear its campaigning. The response to the Telegraph article has brought that out, some of them in full indignant voice. They will completely ignore the fact that the RSPB is acting legitimately to maximise the benefits for conservation. What will be heard loudest, is the RSPB ignoring the wishes of the donor that the land should not be built on. But this is not an insignificant point and I fear that proceeding with the proposal to sell will do more long term financial and reputational damage to the RSPB and hence its ability to protect and speak for nature. There must be an alternative way to make the most of this gift of land to comply with the donor's wishes.
IanW
www.theguardian.com/.../new-builds-birds-rspb
In the Guardian today (June 10th). I always thought that Patrick Barkham was a friend of the RSPB but find his article in this case unbalanced. There are some ridiculous comments following the article as well. The Guardian prides itself on the right to reply. The RSPB is currently under attack on many fronts and perhaps needs to get a bit more forthright in it's defence!
Whilst recognising the difficulties, I would support the RSPB position - it is not just RSPMB, the NT with a much larger land holding have made at least one comparable decision which again seemed the right thing to do. What I would suggest RSPB - and NT - should be doing is using these cases to advance the cause of better environments for new housing. RSPB is there already in its recent link up with Barrats and has the chance through a sale like this to promote environment and wildlife as big issues for quality of life one new housing estates - the economics are there, in the 3rd Natural Capital Committee report which found a strong economic case for 200,000 hectares of new woodland (I'd read wider green space and wildlife value into the 'woodland') close to where people live.
A very sound and sensible appoach by the RSPB, if I may say so.
redkite