The Charity Commission has issued guidance to the trustees of a heritage charity that manages Malvern Hills in Worcestershire, urging them not to publicly oppose a parliamentary bill.
In a letter, seen by Third Sector, the regulator has told trustees of the Malvern Hills Trust – which is registered as Malvern Hills Conservators – to “put their own opinions or positions to one side” and “act solely in the best interests of the charity”.
The correspondence was sent after the commission received concerns about some of the charity’s trustees “being excluded from receiving information and from voting on any decision regarding the Malvern Hills Bill”, the letter shows.
The private bill, which originated in the House of Lords and was funded by the trust following approval from the Commission, aims to change the way the trust is governed, including reducing the number of trustees from 29 to 12. Third Sector understands a private bill is the only legal mechanism through which the charity can amend its governing acts.
Following the bill’s first reading in January 2025, 50 petitions were submitted against the bill, 22 of which a House of Lords select committee refused to allow, because petitioners were “not able to show that they were specially and directly affected” by any of the bill’s provisions.
Five of the nine petitions that were allowed by the committee were from trustees of the Malvern Hills Trust, the committee’s report shows.
The bill is awaiting further debate on whether it can continue its passage through parliament after Baroness Coffey objected to a revival motion in June.
The Charity Commission, which has an ongoing compliance case into the charity, previously warned Malvern Hill trustees of a “risk to MHT’s reputation” caused by how decision-making within the charity is being communicated to beneficiaries and more broadly; as well as by the “perception that trustees are not open to different views being expressed, including from beneficiaries”, its latest letter shows.
Following a request for the trustees to collectively confirm in writing they had reviewed the reputational risk, the regulator said it had “subsequently received correspondence from the trustees setting out that the board were unable to agree a collective response to the commission’s email”.
The letter says: “The trustees’ inability to reach a consensus when responding on this important matter is of regulatory concern to the commission.
“Additionally, it has been brought to our attention that some of the trustees have publicly campaigned against the bill, which raises further regulatory concerns.”
The regulator’s letter says the commission understands that “not all of the current board support the bill in its present form”, but notes the decision was determined to be “in the charity’s best interests” for various reasons, including that the trust’s governing legislation is “outdated, complex and no longer provides an effective framework for governance and administration”.
The commission has acknowledged that the current board “does not have to be bound by previous board’s decisions” but adds: “Given the charity cannot operate effectively under the current governing instruments and the large amount of funds already expended on preparing for the bill, it is difficult to see how a credible case could be made that the bill is no longer in the charity’s interests.”
The commission has reminded trustees of their duty to “always act collectively and in the best interests of the charity”, rather than in the wider public interest.
The regulator said: “The board has previously taken a valid and collective decision that promoting the bill is in the charity’s best interests.
“In light of that decision, trustees should not publicly oppose or petition against the Malvern Hills bill while acting in their capacity as trustees.”
The commission said although trustees are free to hold opposing views on the bill, publicly opposing the agreed position would conflict with the trustees’ legal duties, undermine collective decision-making and go against the board’s agreed position.
John Michael, chair of the Malvern Hills Trust, welcomed the commission’s guidance, adding: “I want to be clear that trustees are entitled to hold and express different views around the Malvern Hills Bill. This, however, goes deeper into the fundamentals of being a charity trustee.
“The trust sought independent regulatory advice on this difficult and unusual issue. It is important for all of us to act consistently with that regulatory guidance.
“We are a charity, not a council, and we must all take collective responsibility for the decisions that have been made in the best interests of the Malvern Hills.”
Michael said the trust is reaching out to all existing petitioners for meetings while the parliamentary bill process is paused.
A spokesperson for the Charity Commission said: “We continue to engage with the trustees of Malvern Hills Conservators on the governance of their charity, and have reminded the board they must always put first the best interests of the charity which was set up to preserve the natural landscape for the benefit of the public.”
This article was updated on 2 September 2026 to include a comment and information from the Charity Commission.