The row that shattered peace at woodland idyll

The café provides a unique attraction on the slopes of the Malvern Hills, serving vegetarian and vegan food with a menu that includes freshly made soup, organic pasties and homemade cakes.

Its quirky charms have made it a particular favourite of celebrities including poet Benjamin Zephania and actor Martin Shaw, who were both quick to sign a petition against Mr Redman’s 20-year tenancy being brought to an end.

As early as April 2009, the Conservators were informed by their solicitors Harrison Clark they stood only a 50 per cent chance of opposing Mr Redman’s application to renew his lease and they possessed “a very vague and unsettled intention” of managing the facility themselves.

The report says “working with the tenant and negotiating improvements, appears never to have entered the corporate mentality” and concludes “running the café for themselves was not initially a genuine primary intention, but, rather, a means to an end.”

It also suggests personal animosity towards Mr Redman was allowed to influence the Conservators’ actions, with the report saying: “Minds were set against the tenant remaining and the whole board was convinced by an influential core of members that services at St Ann’s Well could only be improved if the tenant was removed.”

The Conservators are responsible for managing 3,000 acres of land across the Malvern Hills.

Decisions are made by a 29- strong board, with 11 members elected by the public and the remainder nominated by Malvern Hills District, Worcestershire County and various parish councils.

The organisation is funded using public money, with about two-thirds of costs covered by a levy imposed on council tax payers. The balance comes largely from grants and parking fees.

But in March 2010, Mr Redman was offered £50,000 to simply walk away as the Conservators refused to discuss anything except him leaving the café, because they felt the relationship between landlord and tenant had broken down irretrievably.

Mr Redman’s solicitor suggested he may have considered about £75,000, while at that month’s board meeting the director suggested he was looking for a sum of £125,000 to £150,000.

While the inquiry report found no evidence of any “improper intent” from board members, it did uncover a lack of understanding of their own powers stemming from Acts of Parliament, their duties as trustees and their rights and responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

They compounded these failings by only budgeting for the successful removal of Mr Redman, which led to spiralling costs and a total expenditure of £78,765.17 – a figure that was not incurred dishonestly, according to the inquiry.

This figure includes the legal costs of the Conservators and Mr Redman, which reached £37,970.02 and £28,508.65 respectively, along with £8,886.50 spent on producing business plans, acquiring PR advice, food consultant services and architects services.

It was decided an additional sum of £43,000, covering the time spent on the issue by the director and other officers, should not be included in the final total.

A new five-year lease was finally signed in May 2011 following a series of protests, petitions, mediation sessions and negotiations, with the only change being an increase in the rental charge from £4,500 to £5,500.

The inquiry set in motion in December the same year, with a budget of £5,000.

KEY FINDINGS

􀁥􀁥 Board members did not know or clearly understand what they could and could not rightfully do.

􀁥􀁥 Personal animosity towards the tenant was allowed to influence decisions.

􀁥􀁥 Responsibility for the episode lies with board members and not the director, who acted upon their instructions.

􀁥􀁥 Evidence of communication and organisational issues within the organisation.

BUT

􀁥􀁥 Decisions taken during the affair, while sometimes unfortunate, were taken open and honestly. No evidence was found of any improper intent from board members.