RSPB £6 Million

[johnb]

It is reported in The Daily Telegraph today that an elderly lady in Cheshire left the RSPB 20 acres in Cheshire. This land apparently is home to barn owls and lapwings, and her dying wish was that it should never be built upon.

RSPB is now trying to sell this land for £6 million in order for a company to build houses there. They claim it will help to increase biodiversity.

Surely if a charity is left a gift that is inappropriate or they are unable to fulfil the wishes of the person who left the gift, it should be passed on to, maybe another charity, who is willing and able to do so at a fair market price?

£6 million could buy lots of land from which to exclude the general public, maybe around the Broads? Or even, in the fullness of time, decide that building homes on this land would increase biodiversity or some such reason.

Edited June 6, 2015 by BroadScot
RSPB done

[johnb]

sorry this should read RSPB could someone edit please

[ranworthbreeze]

That does not seem right to me at all, can the Charity Commissioners do nothing about this?

 

Regards

Alan

[jeffbroadslover]

It really amazes me that an organisation with the word "ROYAL" in its title can be so two-faced !

 

" Thank you dear lady for thinking of the birds and donating this land for their benefit. "    By the way we will take no notice of part of your dying wish that the land will not be built on.....we can make a nice cash sum  out of it.

 

The idea leaves a rather bad smell and I can imagine that a lot of people who donate to the RSPB could have second thoughts in the future.

[smellyloo]

Ummm ..... not sure were I stand on this one.

 

You see when you die you cease ownership of things.

 

You can will them to whoever, by all means state your wishes, but ultimately that thing now belongs to the person to whom you gifted it.

 

That person should then be free to do with the thing what they will and not be obligated to maintain it as it was at the point of their death.

 

In the RSPB case the fact that they could sell a parcel of land for a considerable sum should enable them to protect many more bird habitats  than the original plot.

 

Nobody, even the very wealthy, don't really own the land they merely have temporary residency.

[MauriceMynah]

That's certainly the legal standing Lou, but surely there is a moral issue here too, especially given the nature of both the charity and the doners wishes.

The RSPB is hardly "cash strapped"

[smellyloo]

That's certainly the legal standing Lou, but surely there is a moral issue here too, especially given the nature of both the charity and the doners wishes.

The RSPB is hardly "cash strapped"

Yes, that's my dilema moggy, I guess it is dependant on the individual case.

 

If the gift falls within an organisations parameters for stewardship then I guess the owners wish could be accommodated, but for how long?

 

On the other hand if the gift is perceived uneconomic to maintain then the prudent thing would be to sell, particularly , as in this case, it has considerable value.

[ChrisB]

When you talk of the RSPB you are not talking about a cash strapped charity.

For FY 2013/14 the figures go along the lines of Income £127m Cost of generation £33m and a sort of profit if you will of £94m.

Of that income £30m was from legacies.

Very powerful serious players.

[Polly]

Oh we know they are powerful, far too powerful.

[ChrisB]

I meant to add that their income is not far off twice that spent by Central Government on all the National Parks put together.

[Soundings]

If the land was left to the RSPB with a covenant saying that it can not be built on then that covenant should prevail and the Charity Commissioners should be brought into the loop. Of course, what we do not know is what the transfer documentation actually said. Maybe we should all raise it with the RSPB and force a response from them.

 

We had a similar situation in our village where land had been left in trust with the Parish Council on the basis that it must be used as a village amenity, including playing fields. The PC were thinking of selling a chunk for housing but backed off due to the terms of the trust.

 

I have supported the RSPB for years as I do believe they do a lot of good. Stuff like this though disgusts me and if true I will certainly withdraw my support.

[Hylander]

Lesson of the day, leave your money to family, these charities are very rich now. They appeal to old folk with old fashioned values, trouble is they are just businesses these days.

[JawsOrca]

Here's the story.. It's certainly not one charity I would support now.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/11655089/RSPB-ignores-widows-wishes-and-looks-to-sell-land-for-housing.html

[JawsOrca]

Here's their official reply:
 

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2015/06/06/rspb-comment-on-media-coverage-regarding-an-estate-gifted-to-the-charity.aspx

[Soundings]

Here's their official reply:

 

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2015/06/06/rspb-comment-on-media-coverage-regarding-an-estate-gifted-to-the-charity.aspx

Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[johnb]

Yes, a reasoned response. I just get the feeling however, that if this were two other organisations rather than themselves being involved, the RSPB  may have felt that the lapwings, barn owls and open land  were more important! Speculation of course, we will never know.

[MauriceMynah]

Dave, amazing as you might find this, I agree with every word you've said!

 

Staggering eh!

[Timbo]

I've tried to keep quiet on this topic but the gag slipped!

 

I've had dealings with the RSPB on both a professional and personal basis on numerous occasions. On a professional basis I find them to be at best incompetent, ill-informed and cash orientated with little or no understanding of landscape archaeology or basic land management. On a personal level I have found them to be bullying, underhanded, greedy and on occasion downright aggressive with no care or concern for the environment. 

 

I wouldn't trust them to protect and maintain a two foot square of turf. It would die through neglect and then be sold for a housing development.

[grendel]

far better to transfer the land before death and have the covenant added to the land title that it should not be used for building upon, this way without an expensive legal battle the new owner of the land cannot build upon it.

Grendel

[johnb]

Wow, Timbo, glad you got that off your chest! And the RSPB speak so well of you!!!

[jeffbroadslover]

Why has it taken 14 years for the RSPB to decide that the land has "no current or potential value to wildlife"?

 

Isn't it amazing what difference it makes to the potential value ( to the bank account) could be if they can get planning permission granted.

 

Maybe the local council should be made aware of the dear lady's dying wishes and then see how they feel about it.

 

Can't imagine that it would win many votes when people find out if they allow the planning to go through.

 

 

Jeff 

[Soundings]

The RSPB have gone back to the executors of the ladies will and if the executors are happy then they (RSPB) have done all they need. The executors have the power to vary the will. If it is a fiddle (which I doubt) then the execs are at fault. It is nothing to do with the council and has no relationship as to whether or not a planning application should be passed - not if the executors have agreed to the variation.

 

Fourteen years is a long time and things can change. For instance a wild life habitat can be devalued by many means , including the usage adjacent land might be put to.

[ChrisB]

Some time ago someone on one of the forums recommended a book, it is called "Isles of The West" by Ian Mitchell.

It is a very good read if you are interested in small boat cruising the Western Isles but in context with this thread it offers a real insight into the workings of the RSPB in Scotland. I bought it in Kindle format for Android so pretty cheap. Sorry if I am pinching someone's thunder but please read if you can.

[Wussername]

I always thought that the executors had the power to alter a will if all the beneficiary's were in agreement.

Perhaps ALL the beneficiary's were in agreement. Does not make it morally right though.

[Soundings]

I always thought that the executors had the power to alter a will if all the beneficiary's were in agreement.

Perhaps ALL the beneficiary's were in agreement. Does not make it morally right though.

That is true, I believe, or at least a majority of them. But the Executors have agreed so presumably all those with an interest have come out on-side. Nothing is forever and I do not necessarily agree with your objections on the grounds of immorality. It may well be that the land is of no real benefit wildlife wise any more and that the asset can be put to better use. It would be foolish (immoral?) in my mind to just let the land sit there doing not a lot.

 

To be honest, we just do not know but as is often the case we are taking up RSPB bashing 'cause they seem to be disliked by some on here. I am sure some think they do a grand job whilst others feel that they do the best they can.