The Charity of Mrs Mabel Luke owns a piece of land in Mill Lane, Newbury. It has 4 almshouses on part of the land. It also has planning permission to demolish these and build 16 flats - also almshouses, to be lived in by "residents of the parish of Greenham or town of Newbury in hardship need and distress".
But who was Mabel Luke? Even the charity's trustees know very little about her, except that she gave the land in 1928, came originally from Hampshire but lived for a while in Donnington.
Does anyone out there know?
There doesn't seem to be any member of the Luke family living in the area now.

I don't know. I've tried to find out more about her. The charity has a Business Plan with some info. I'd be interested to know more about her intentions too.

I must admit, I've wondered what the charity was all about and what it was supposed to be doing - but the business plan doesn't really answer that and actually prompts rather more questions than it answers. Many people are wary of renting homes and this provides one of the reasons. These days, is it not very odd that the tenants appear to have no trustee looking after their interests. It's as if 1950s Council House rules still apply!

I believe, having read the business plan, that it is all pretty much above board and that the development will provide extra accommodation for Newbury. I see that of the three residents of the existing houses, only one has shown an interest in the offer by the charity to fund their moving expenses, allow them to rent alternative accommodation at their current rate and then move into one of the new flats.

The only objection that I can see is that the trust, as set up, was for unfortunate "families" to obtain charitable housing support. The units as projected are for one bedroom single accommodation, with some small family two bedroom units. Neither of these would really support a larger family, assuming two children, one of each, which does perhaps deviate from what Mabel had in mind when she built the current houses. I'm sure the trust has weighed this up in the decision making process and are doing their best to maximise what she left the properties in trust for.

I'm sure you are quite right. The charity has very worthy aims. As you rightly point out, there is a question about what constitutes a family, but in today's context, their proposition is likely likely to be a reasonable position.

The interesting question is then what happens when the tenants are no longer unfortunate, are they obliged to move on and so free up accommodation for another deserving case? Again, that's fair enough, provided the existing tenants realise and understand that.

In this particular case, it would seem that the tenants thought they had tenure for as long as they wanted. The removal is compulsory, yes mitigated by an offer of alternative accommodation, but it's this element that makes most people, rich or poor, want to own their own home.

More enlightened modern political thinking is beginning to see that our overt concentration on domestic property ownership is actually economically damaging, hence the present drive to try and significantly increase the size of the rented sector. Good practice, particularly to remove the perceived stigma of renting, tries to involve tenants in the management of their homes.

I wholly agree the charity is clearly wholly above board and the trustees are very properly undertaking their function. However, I'd just wonder in today's environment, if it was still entirely appropriate and should the management processes be modernised?

If only people knew the truth.

Now I'm confused, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Can you expand? Personally, I am very dubious about the cost effectiveness of this scheme and don't understand why the charity can't leave the existing properties in place and build on the excess land as was originally suggested by the residents. Have you made the NWN aware of what you know?

Mabel Luke left the money for almshouses and expressed the wish that they should benefit poor families with children.

Thereby lay a big problem - deserving families with children may remain deserving, but the children will cease to be children. What the trustees probably should have done is give tenancies of limited length - eg until the youngest child reaches school leaving age or 21 or somesuch. That way they wouldn't end up with elderly couples occupying a three bed family house.

As it is almshouses are virtually redundant; the state has grown a system that houses the deserving, generally in larger, more modern accommodation. In days of yore there were many applicants whenever an almshouse became vacant, today they struggle to find people who want to live in the older ones.

The Trustees' scheme for the Mabel Luke site makes a lot of sense, but does jar with Mabel's wish to help young families - and I do like the look of the original houses, I can't imagine a block of flats looking half as good.

Yes, the whole issue is a difficult one. I wholly agree about the tenancies, but one can imagine what would happen if they actually tried to enforce such a rule these days! It's just what local councils unsuccessfully used to try and do, generally on a voluntary basis, with their council houses. As for the properties, wouldn't disagree there either. No fun being a trustee then.

I briefly looked into this too, but could find no Will for a Mabel Luke around that date. I therefore assume that she 'gave' the land, but not by a Will.

There is a bit of back ground to the charity here:

http://www.findmeagrant.org/wberks/addinfo...89e48fd74fb.pdf

Section 2.1 of this business plan indicates the properties were "conveyed" during her lifetime to the trust.

Ahem! Yes as I said above!