Beginning his working life in the aviation industry and trained by the BBC, Tony Gosling is a British land rights activist, historian & investigative radio journalist. Over the last 20 years he has been exposing the secret power of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and élite Bilderberg Conferences where the dark forces of corporations, media, banks and royalty conspire to accumulate wealth and power through extortion and war. Tony has spent much of his life too advocating solutions which heal the wealth divide, such as free housing for all and a press which reflects the concerns of ordinary people rather than attempting to lead opinion, sensationalise or dumb-down. Tony tweets at @TonyGosling. Tune in to his Friday politics show at BCfm.
A large number of locals came together to link hands on a Pembrokeshire beach in a protest against plans for “huge” structures overlooking the coastline. There are plans to build 27 radar dishes at Cawdor Barracks in Brawdy to monitor satellites and other objects in space, something which many residents object to.
Residents attended the protest on Newgale Beach on Sunday, August 3, with the linked chain of people stretching from one side of the beach to the other.
Newgale sits underneath a hill which the dishes, which would be as tall as four London buses, part of the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC) project to track satellites, could be erected on. They will be 68ft (21m) high and 49ft (15m) wide and will be situated close to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.
Locals established the PARC Against DARC pressure group last year when the plans were announced, creating a petition and lobbying politicians. The petition has gathered over 17,000 signatures and opposes the plans on health and environmental grounds. It says that DARC would “drive a wrecking ball through our tourism industry.” Defence Secretary John Healey last year said the proposed redevelopment of Cawdor Barracks “secures jobs at home and defence capabilities for the future.”
Following the recent protest, a PARC Against DARC spokesperson said: “It’s overwhelmingly clear to us how much opposition there is both to DARC radar and to the proposed Newgale bypass road, which has just seen a flood of objections in its public consultation that went well over 90% against.
“It’s almost universally believed here that the road, which would decimate the Brandy Brook valley and cost tens of millions, would be required for both the construction and operation of DARC.” A public consultation for a Newgale bypass road is ongoing but the Ministry of Defence has not requested such a road as part of its plans.
Tim Rees, director of local annual Pembrokeshire music event Unearthed Festival, raised concerns about the impact the proposed dishes would have on local businesses.
Speaking at the demonstration, he said: “We have a beautiful coastline which the National Park has done a great job of preserving, and we’re about to turn a blind eye to decades’ worth of preservation, for what? For something we don’t have a say in, that won’t benefit tourism, and will directly impact me in my business.
“I run a music festival as well as some hospitality businesses, and this isn’t going to help. The money that’s invested, we won’t see that as local people.” The Ministry of Defence has already begun an environmental impact assessment for the proposed redevelopment which will include examining its impact on the skyline, wildlife, local people and communities, businesses, as well as the wider landscape and heritage.
For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here
In 2023 the UK, US and Australian security pact signed in 2023, when the three states agreed to build a system which could identify potential “targets” up to 22,000 miles away from Earth where many military satellites are positioned. DARC is not directly part of the partnership but involves collaboration between Australia, the UK and US.
PARC Against DARC say many local residents are concerned about the health impacts they claim are associated with the radiation DARC radar would produce.
“There’s staggering scientific evidence that shows elevated cancer rates in people who work in radar stations that are exactly the same, using the same wavelengths as the one that would be at DARC,” said Emma Tannahill.
“Those people who got cancer were not sitting on the radar dishes at their lunch breaks: they were people who were working at the stations, and they were not directly in front those beams.”
A Ministry of Defence Spokesperson said: “The Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC) programme will secure long-term jobs in Pembrokeshire, Wales and help protect essential satellite communication and navigation networks.
“We are engaging with the local community on proposals to redevelop Cawdor Barracks to host DARC, which will be operated by UK personnel.
“We are following processes agreed with Pembrokeshire Country Council and have already begun a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, including to ensure the project has minimal impact on the local skyline.
“We continue to hold public information events in Pembrokeshire to hear views and answer any questions. We respect people’s right to peaceful protest.”
Plotlands and the Housing Crisis by Stefan Szczelkun
What can we learn from the plotlands, that started in the 1920s and 1930s, that could solve the current housing crisis? The key thing is that one starts with something cheap and small and gradually adds to and evolves this starter structure.
1. Land must be made available for self-build development in a way that does not make the plots prohibitively expensive. Ideally maintaining agricultural value per plot. This might imply a legislative change in planning permissions.
2. This might mean some kind of organisation structure that obtains and holds the land for this use. Users could get secure land tenure when they had proved their commitment and availability to build. Resale could only recoup investment made in building materials etc. Additional value might go back into providing more land.
3. Planners would have to be ready to accept a rough and ready aesthetic to start with. With the knowledge from plotlands that the houses will gradually achieve a more coherent architectural aesthetic as they develop over a decade or two. The appreciation of improvisation might require a light hand from Building regulation and planning? Keeping in mind their higher purpose of communal well-being.
4. A motorhome could provide basic amenities at first as the building goes through its initial stages. ie groundwork and initial shelter. Cost of a second-hand motorhome or converting a van could be as low as £5000.
5. The cost of initial ground works (ideally collectivised for 10 or more dwellings) and basic enclosure would constitute a basic level of investment. It would be good if this could be in the region of £20 – £30,000. At this point permanent occupation as a first home would be expected in exchange for security of tenure and a rent to pay back land costs.
6. The initial shelter might be as simple as a single living space with kitchen and bathroom as per motorhome technology. The structure of this space might be a factory made and insulated timber structure. Or, depending on the site and building skills available, the walls might be rammed earth, straw bale, stone or other material as available locally. Recycling of window and door units?
Designed so additional rooms can be added to external walls or through subdivision of the internal space with internal panels.
7. An architectural reference to the ‘Low cost, loose fit, low energy, long life’. Promoted by Alex Gordon in 1972 also Alison Ravetz.
8. This could be applied to multi-storey re-used structure – with a more challenging aesthetics? (although they could be developed behind an agreed skin/ cladding.
Multi-storey flats would be built by a co-operative of builders that included training in required skills.
Groups plan the internal layout and surface finishes of their own flats.
9. The original plotlands used railway carriages, showman’s wagons or buses as the starter shelter. There could be a national reuse of all lorry bodies and larger vans coming to the end of their mechanical life. These might only need insulation and ventilation to be useful.
10. More abstractly: a. The working class produces all value including housing. b. The UK Plotlands shows us what was possible when working class people were allowed half a chance in the 1920s and 1930s. Surviving examples needs to be recognised and protected as our working class cultural heritage. This recognition that we have the power to directly solve our basic human needs is empowering.
11. National extent: Bower, Richard 2021. Lost plotlands: regulatory consequences of forgotten places. Town Planning Review 92 (5) , pp. 643-666. 10.3828/tpr.2021.8
Bowers points to the significance of JA Steers (1944) remarkable walked survey of the British coast in which he identified plotlands as ‘areas of bad scattered development’!
Full Res maps and paper here: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/135909/1/R%20Bower%202020%20Plotlands%20TPR%20post%20print.pdf
Set amongst the houseboat community on the Thames near Fulham, A.P.Herbert’s popular 1930 novel, The Water Gypsies, portrayed a collection of people at odds with society. Colin Ward and Dennis Hardy’s research saved Plotlands from the oblivion of official planning histories
Photographer Jason Orton and writer Ken Worpole documented the changing landscape and coastline of Essex and East Anglia, particularly its estuaries, islands and urban edgelands. In 2013 they published their second book, The New English Landscape (Field Station | London, 2013), the second edition of which was published in 2015.
Hundreds of ACORN members from across England and Wales came together in Leeds this week for the first national day of action in our Bailiff Free Britain campaign.
Over 300 members from branches across the country disrupted the annual conference of the Civil Court Users Association, one of the main events for bailiff and debt collection companies. The conference hosted representatives from some of Britain’s largest enforcement firms, but when ACORN arrived, they didn’t stick around for long. Members filled the building, hung banners from the balconies, and within minutes the event was abandoned.
With the building taken over, ACORN members inside hosted our own panel on the fight for a Bailiff Free Britain. Members shared experiences of being in council tax debt, bailiff harassment, and the impact on families and communities. Together we made it clear that the days of bullying and intimidation for profit are numbered.
After shutting down the conference, members marched to Leeds Civic Hall where a group occupied the lobby to demand that Leeds City Council and Cllr Asghar Khan meet with ACORN Leeds. The council had ignored requests for a meeting for months, but after hundreds of members arrived and made themselves heard, Cllr Khan came down to meet us in person. A formal meeting to discuss ACORN’s demands and the wider campaign was quickly confirmed.
The Leeds action was part of ACORN’s national Bailiff Free Britain campaign, which is calling for an end to the use of bailiffs to collect council tax debt and for fairer, more supportive alternatives. Across England and Wales, council tax debt has now reached almost £7 billion, and more than 1.4 million households were referred to bailiffs last year. Meanwhile, bailiff companies are making tens of millions of pounds in profit while people already struggling through the cost of living crisis are being pushed even deeper into debt.
ACORN is demanding an end to the use of bailiffs for council tax collection, proper support for people in arrears, caps on excessive fees, an end to imprisonment for non-payment, and a fairer alternative to the council tax system. These changes would protect millions of people and stop councils from relying on private companies that profit from poverty.
The day in Leeds showed what happens when working-class people stand together. Hundreds of members forced the bailiff industry to abandon its own conference, won a meeting with the council after months of being ignored, and made our demands impossible to ignore.
From Leeds to Cardiff to Bristol, ACORN members are proving that when communities get organised, we can take on powerful industries and win. The fight for a Bailiff Free Britain has only just begun, join ACORN today to be a part of it.
Country’s first community-owned farm in north Shropshire to double in size after donation
But the expanding group better watch out for sophisticated infiltration, so they don’t go down the heartbreaking routes of Robin Page’s Countryside Restoration Trust and Dorset’s Monkton Wyld Court
Faced with eviction in 2005, the family behind the farm raised enough money through 8,000 non-profit shareholders to purchase the 126-acre site. Since then, the farm has thrived under the leadership of tenant farmer Ben Hollins and his sister Charlotte – children of Arthur Hollins who turned the farm organic.
Now, Fordhall Farm has announced that it will double in size thanks to the generous donation of a second farm – but there’s a twist.
The farm that is being gifted is not in Market Drayton, nor is it in Shropshire, but incredibly, 200 miles away in Devon.
West Town Farm, near Exeter, is a 170-acre organic beef and sheep enterprise. Like Fordhall, it hosts a wide range of community activities including arts, community gardening, camping, weddings and community events, and also boasts a farm shop.
Its current owner, Andy Bragg, said he believes that farms should be at the “heart of rural communities”, and, as he approaches retirement, has decided to gift the farm to the Fordhall Community Land Initiative to ensure that West Town’s community ethos continues.
Charlotte Hollins, General Manager at Fordhall Community Land Initiative said: “The similarities between West Town and Fordhall are striking. Both are organic, pasture-for-life livestock farms and have community at our heart.
“We both want to show a different direction for farming and understand the importance of retaining those connections to the land both within our communities as well as the soil. We have also both been described as slightly quirky, different and even crack-pot at times!
“Dad (late Arthur Hollins) and Andy are such similar characters. The charitable structure of Fordhall Community Land Initiative means that the amazing work begun by Andy in Devon can be continued and secured well into the future, alongside the work of Dad, at Fordhall. Both with local people fully involved in the process.”
The transfer of the farm to Fordhall will not be completed until 2027, allowing time for legal and governance structures to be finalised.
In the meantime, existing staff at West Town, including Andy, will continue running the farm, while the Fordhall Community Land Initiative will provide support and guidance, drawing on nearly 20 years of experience in community farm ownership.
“I suppose some people will think it’s strange to give my farm away,” said Andy.
“I don’t want West Town Farm to be gobbled up by some giant agri-business. What I care about is that the farm’s place in the community and locality. I want the farm to benefit everyone and I know that giving it to Fordhall Community Land Initiative will ensure this happens.
“Fordhall’s values are strongly aligned and gifting West Town Farm to ordhall will protect West Town Farm’s mission and values. Although we are 200 miles apart, the synergy between us means we are both on the same path.
“Learning together, supporting each other and playing a part in our local communities. Whether that is hosting school visits, art groups or barn dances etc, and the local community will always be welcome.”
Rachel Reeves bowed to corporate landlords in her Budget just as she mounted a fresh raid on ordinary families with incomes from second properties.
Private landlords now face tens of thousands of pounds in additional bills, from tax to licensing and energy improvements – while build-to-rent developers are on track for a £3bn windfall.
Many of these firms – which include FTSE 100 companies and even banks – have long lobbied successive governments in an effort to squeeze smaller, private landlords out.
Deputy prime minister, Angela Rayer, was photographed just last month whispering in the ear of Larry Finks, BlackRock’s chief executive.
Grainger UK, whose biggest shareholder is BlackRock, currently owns over 11,000 rental homes. It is believed to be the biggest corporate landlord in England.
Legal & General (L&G) also claims to have poured over £3bn into rental investments to date.
Even Britain’s biggest bank, Lloyds, is honing in on the opportunity. Its build-to-rent company Citra Living now owns 5,000 properties and counting.
“Behind closed doors, Labour tends to be supportive of build-to-rent – but not in public,” one industry insider told The Telegraph.
Some Labour politicians have already staked a claim in the corporate landlord market. London Mayor and “renters champion”, Sadiq Khan, has said he wants to raise £187m come 2030 by building rental homes near Transport for London (TfL) stations.
To achieve this, Mr Khan needs to more than quadruple the number of rental homes on TfL’s books, from 4,000 to 20,000, by 2031. As of this year, TfL had started building 4,000 rental units – of which only around 1,500 have been delivered to date.
Dan Wilson Craw, of campaign group Generation Rent, said profit-driven institutional landlords had been linked to “unaffordable rent increases”.
He said: “Some [tenants] have had better experiences than renting from individuals with a small portfolio, but being corporate doesn’t inherently equate professionalism and long-term tenancies.
“While some pension funds [investors of build-to-rent] appear committed to longer tenancies, with limited annual rent rises, we’ve heard reports of other investment funds seeking to maximise profits through unaffordable rent increases and evictions.”
‘Are we building the ghettos of the future?’
Build-to-rent flats are often advertised as being “more energy efficient” than private rental homes, but as some residents in Wembley have found out – that’s not always the case.
Speaking to The Telegraph earlier this year, tenants of Quintain Living – a US-owned company – said they were paying 86pc more for their energy bills than the average Londoner.
This was in spite of the company advertising average savings of “56pc” on utility bills, thanks to every flat boasting an energy performance certificate rating of “B”.
A Quintain spokesman has since blamed a planning consent order, which required the developer to build two district heat networks to supply heat and hot water to the buildings.
In another case in Croydon, south London, residents in one of L&G’s £3,000 a month “luxury” build-to-rent developments have spent the last year fighting for better living conditions.
Reports from My London and Inside Croydon in September quoted some of the 251 tenants whose pets had even fallen ill from mould, which was first exposed by campaigner Kwajo Tweneboa.
Others reported collapsed ceilings and severe water leaks. L&G has since begun to fix the issues which it blamed on a “build quality issue”.
Richard Upton, a social developer and a visiting fellow at the University of Reading, said he “worries” when he sees schemes of thousands of flats going up.
“Is that a place for people to live for 20 years? With just a coffee shop underneath? This is where we need to be thinking more about mixed use, adding parks and other amenities.
“Such is the rate of inflation and the cost of new things, that those in new-build flats – especially in London – can just about afford to exist. It’s a good thing if income-to-rent ratios one day come down, if we build enough. But at what cost? Are we building the ghettos of the future?
It’s not just the varying quality of new builds erected at pace that’s worrying. Often, rents for new-builds carry a 10pc premium – much like new-build sales.
Britain’s biggest landlord, Grainger UK, collects nearly £100m in rent each year.
In May, the London Renters Union campaign group protested outside Grainger UK’s head office accusing the company of “getting rich gentrifying our city’s neighbourhoods” and “lobbying [the] Government against our rights”.
In a thread on X, formerly Twitter, the campaign group also accused the company of putting up luxury flats for rent in historically working-class areas such as Tottenham or Canning Town which are “wildly unaffordable for local people”.
“Corporate landlords and developers are tearing our communities apart, pushing us out while lining their own pockets,” one of their tweets reads.
A member of the campaign group living in Seven Sisters claimed they were forced out by a 50pc rent increase, after their landlord cited a nearby Grainger UK development as “the new market rent”.
Grainger UK disputed this and said its Seven Sisters development, Apex Gardens, is regulated by the Government’s Regulator of Social Housing and includes a high proportion of affordable homes on rents below the open market.
Grainger UK told The Telegraph that rather than lobbying against renters’ rights, it has publicly supported Labour’s Renters’ Rights Bill.
In September this year, in an official London stock market announcement, Grainger Uk said it “looks forward to continuing to use its expertise to help inform and shape the final legislation”.
A spokesman for Grainger UK said that tenants of the company in London spend just “28pc” of their incomes on rent and that it has “no control over other landlords’ pricing”.
Their shareholders benefit from around 41 cents of every euro tenants pay in rent on average, according to the research arm of consumer lobby group Finanzwende.
Unprecedented rises in rents, paired with poor maintenance, has sparked city-wide protests and referendums to transfer ownership of the homes back to the state after it sold them off in the 1990s.
The city’s largest renter association told The Telegraph last year that while individual landlords typically raise rents by around 20pc, corporate ones will raise them by as much as 50pc.
One thing which is worrying England’s corporate landlords – despite all the well-received lobbying – is Labour’s plan to get rid of powers to write rent increases into contracts, as part of its Renters’ Rights Bill.
This change, once in legislation, will force corporations to serve tenants with rent notices which – unlike contracted rent increases – can be challenged in a tribunal if they do not reflect the “market rate”.
If tenants were to start challenging rent increases en masse, this could pose a serious risk to the income of these listed companies and their shareholders.
Some law firms have even suggested such “restrictions” on in-tenancy rent increases could lead to deep-pocketed landlords waging costly future legal challenges against the Labour government – particularly if rents fail to keep pace with market inflation.
The former Labour leader criticised his former colleague after The Telegraph revealed she had agreed for eight allotments across England to be sold since last years general election.
Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Corbyn said the decision would fill many with deep dismay and accused Ms Rayner of making the future of these precious spaces even more perilous.
Praising the Diggers, English Civil War dissidents who sought common ownership of land, he said: Is this government going to put the nail in the coffin of the joy of digging ground for potatoes on a cold, wet February Sunday afternoon?
Advertisement
Mr Corbyn, who has recently turned his back on Labour to launch a new party, is a keen horticulturist and uses an allotment near his north London home.
He has said his favourite crop was marrows, and that time spent growing produce helped alleviate the stress of working in Westminster.
Ms Rayner has changed the rules on local government assets to give cash-strapped councils more flexibility to sell off land, including allotments and school playing fields.
Some of the land, including a community allotment in Storrington, West Sussex, has been sold to developers to build new homes.
Mr Corbyn said Labour should have more regard for the troubled history of land ownership, and the struggle over access by those who simply want to grow their own crops.
He wrote: Of course, social housing is desperately needed, but we need not sacrifice these vital green spaces to build it, he wrote.
We can build on ex-industrial land and take over empty properties. Even then, we should ensure social housing is accompanied by community gardens and adequate growing space.
Advertisement
Under a century-old law, the Housing Secretary is required to give permission for any to be sold off by local authorities.
The list of eight allotments she has agreed to be sold were revealed in Parliament last month, and include sites in Somerset, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire.
Mr Corbyn has said he does not use any weedkiller on his allotment, which can make the process of weeding it laborious, but believes that each gardener has their own philosophy.
I like a marrow, he told his local newspaper earlier this year. You get a long marrow which is basically a courgette and cut it long ways; take out the seeds to plant again for next year, then fill it with chopped vegetables, onions, make some indentations in it and smother that in olive oil and bake it very slowly.
The party supports nationalisation of public utilities and infrastructure, and will have the support of trade unions, he said. It is also opposed to the Israeli governments assault on Gaza, but other policy decisions will be taken after a vote of members later this year.
Ms Rayner previously served in Mr Corbyns top team as shadow education secretary, before winning the deputy leadership of the party in the year Sir Keir Starmer became the party leader.
Her department said that councils should only sell off allotments where it is clearly necessary and offers value for money.
A spokesman added: We know how important allotments are for communities, and that is why strict criteria is in place to protect them, as well as school playing fields.
But the Conservatives said the policy was a kick in the teeth to local people who dont have access to their own gardens and called for the Government to do more to protect green spaces.
The loss of allotments makes us all poorer
By Jeremy Corbyn
News that Angela Rayner may approve allotment sales will fill many with deep dismay.
Allotments have always been under threat from developers. Now, that threat seems to have government backing, which makes the future of these precious spaces even more perilous.
Advertisement
Those advising government and local authorities should have some regard for the troubled history of land ownership, and the struggle over access by those who simply want to grow their own crops.
The debate goes back to the English Civil War, when the King wanted to secure control of the land he had gained, while Cromwell claimed to speak for the farmers. In truth, it was the Diggers who were the real revolutionaries. They wanted land to be in common ownership.
Despite the restoration of the monarchy, huge areas of land were known as the Commons and survived for almost another two centuries. That is, until the greed of big landowners won out once again.
Jeremy Corbyn on his allotment with his son Tommy
The Enclosure Acts, one of the most grotesque abuses of power by Parliament, took away the growing and grazing rights of the rural poor. A monstrous attack on working-class life, the enclosures represented the widespread theft of public land, sanctioned by a parliament that was dominated by landowners.
The rural poor, left with nothing and facing starvation, were forced to migrate to industrial cities. It was in these rapidly growing industrial cities notably in Birmingham that allotments started to grow. Allotments, then, grew out of opposition to enclosures and the privatisation of common land.
Advertisement
Allotments were regulated in the late 19th and 20th century and, even though numbers have since fallen, there are about 330,000 allotment plots. At least 100,000 people are on waiting lists.
Once lost, they never return
Allotments have been crucial in times of national stress. Many came out of the Second World War. Indeed, many that were established in the First World War, such as the one I enjoy in north London, have survived to this day.
Once lost, they never return. Their loss makes us all poorer, as we become more and more detached from how food is grown and how nature interacts with us.
Allotments provide a vital space for community cohesion, biodiversity and social solidarity. These parcels of land, that cannot be individually fenced, provide growing space for many people.
Many people have no access to their own garden, and an allotment gives them the opportunity to grow vegetables and fruit and observe nature.
Allotments are particularly important for people who experience stress and mental health problems. I speak to many people who would love access to them for this very reason.
Advertisement
Property developers have always had their eyes on these parcels of land. Together with local authorities, they construct various arguments for building over them. Instead of contemplating sales of these wonderful spaces, the Government should be encouraging the growth of allotments, or where there is insufficient land, the growth of community and school gardens.
In my own borough of Islington, community gardens have played a vital role in bringing the community together and encouraging sustainable food production.
Of course, social housing is desperately needed, but we need not sacrifice these vital green spaces to build it. We can build on ex-industrial land and take over empty properties. Even then, we should ensure social housing is accompanied by community gardens and adequate growing space.
Is this Government going to put the nail in the coffin of the joy of digging ground for potatoes on a cold, wet February Sunday afternoon? The battle for the grass roots is on!
Jeremy Corbyn is the independent MP for Islington North
Farmers across Northern Ireland are warning that new net zero-driven phosphate regulations will destroy the region’s beef and dairy industry.
Without proper consultation, civil servants are imposing strict phosphorus limits that could force farms to slash livestock numbers or shut down entirely. Estimates show a £1.6 billion hit to the Northern Ireland agri-food economy, with rising food prices, job losses, and long-term damage to UK food security.
Beef and dairy farmer David Irwin says this isn’t about clean rivers, it’s about “killing cows for climate goals.” Reporter Dougie Beattie investigates the growing farmer backlash and what it could mean for the rest of the UK.
A record number of farms were forced to close for good this year after Rachel Reeves’s tax raid made the future of thousands of rural businesses unviable.
A total of 6,365 agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses have closed over the past year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the highest since quarterly data was first published in 2017.
The majority of these closures took place during the first six months of the year after Ms Reeves, the Chancellor, announced in October that she would cut the amount of inheritance tax relief available to family farms.
Just 3,190 businesses in the sector have been set up over the same period. It leaves a net loss of 3,175, indicating the number of farms is shrinking at the fastest pace on record.
Farms are closing faster than new ones open
Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, said the farm closures were a result of “Labour’s disastrous tax policies”.
She added: “The crippling NICs [National Insurance contributions] increases, alongside the family farm and family firm taxes, are destroying generational businesses, creating job instability and even leading to devastating suicides.
“These statistics prove that Labour do not understand our rural communities and our rural communities cannot afford Labour.”
Lee Anderson, a Reform UK MP, said rising taxes and red tape were “pushing British farming to the brink”.
“No government in modern history has done more damage to rural Britain than Labour is right now,” he said.
“Farms are closing at twice the rate new ones are opening. This is completely unsustainable. Labour has betrayed the industry that helped build this country.”
‘Beaten from post to pillar’
Farmers are also grappling with the soaring cost of fertiliser and a poor harvest following the recent drought and floods last year.
James Grindal, a 55-year-old third-generation farmer in South Leicestershire, said the poor weather and barrage of costs mean new farmers and entrepreneurs are reluctant to set up businesses in the industry.
He said: “Yields are quite a bit down this year, it has been so dry – we have not had decent rain for four or five months.
“People have been beaten from post to pillar. Whichever way you turn you seem unwanted.
“The Government is not over-supportive of us, with inheritance tax relief disappearing.”
Mr Grindal’s 84-year-old father still works on the farm and remains a part-owner. However, he warned that the Chancellor’s tax raid meant that when his father dies, the family will be unable to invest in the farm as planned.
Mr Grindal said: “He is still actively involved in the farm – he still sits on tractors occasionally, why shouldn’t he own a bit of the land he has worked hard to own? Out of nowhere [this tax was] dropped on us.
“When he passes away we are going to have to pay a fair bit of tax on that. It will probably stop us from doing some of what we are doing.
“I could understand the tax if we were going to sell it. But we are not, we are going to keep growing corn and feeding people.”
Currently, family farms do not incur inheritance tax, receiving full relief on the usual 40pc rate. Under the changes introduced by Ms Reeves which take effect from April 2026, inheritance tax will be charged at a rate of 20pc, above a threshold of £1m.
Farmers have objected that their businesses are typically cash-poor and low-margin, meaning they will be forced to sell chunks of their land to settle the bill.
Mr Grindal said that the tax changes meant his teenage sons would be even more reluctant to take on the family business.
“There are not many people coming new into the industry. I’ve got two boys, 19 and 17, and I very much doubt they will come into farming,” he said.
“There is not a great deal of encouragement to get up at the crack of dawn and work all day and not get much reward for it, when they see what else they can do.”
Confidence at ‘rock-bottom’
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said confidence in the industry was “at rock-bottom” with farmers facing “a number of challenges.”
The inheritance tax rise came as “another bitter blow and another attack”, he said.
Mr Bradshaw added: “It creates this continuing sense that the industry isn’t valued and its worth to the country isn’t being recognised.
“I can understand why the psychology is there that people will be taking the decisions that they may be resigned to sell off, and they are no longer able to make a living off it.”
Victoria Vyvyan, president of the Country Land and Business Association, said taxes and red tape were undermining farmers’ efforts to make ends meet.
She said: “This report says what ministers won’t: rural businesses are being pushed to the edge.
“Farmers trying to modernise or diversify are blocked at every turn – by red tape, by National Insurance rises, by a government that talks growth while pulling out the foundations beneath it.
“Still, the countryside carries on. New businesses are opening. People are holding on. But grit isn’t a strategy. What’s needed now is simple: stability, clarity, and a government willing to listen – before more farms are lost and more families are forced out.”
Michael Oakes, who sold his dairy business last year and now runs a beef herd in the West Midlands, said the rising demand for renewable energy was also compounding farmers’ woes.
He added: “You’ve got some landlords taking land out of food production to put into solar.”
Farmers drove tractors into central London to protest changes to inheritance tax rules Credit: Eddie Mulholland for The Telegraph
Ms Reeves’s tax change, which alongside a similar reduction in the relief for family businesses is set to raise up to £520m per year for the Exchequer, caused immediate political ructions with farmers driving tractors into central London to protest outside Parliament.
MPs also heard emotional evidence from family farms about the dangers of the tax raid.
Jonathan Charlesworth, a farmer in Yorkshire, said his father, John, took his own life in fear of the inheritance tax raid.
Other farmers have told The Telegraph that the impending increase has opened a “suicide window” for elderly business owners who worry they will impose a financial burden on their children and grandchildren by staying alive beyond April of next year.
Any hopes the plans might be softened were dashed with the publication of the Finance Bill this week which confirmed the changes will come into force next year.
A Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs spokesman said: “Our commitment to farming and food security is steadfast and farming profits in the UK increased by £1.6bn last year.
“We are slashing costs and red tape for food producers to export to the EU, have appointed former NFU president Baroness Minette Batters to recommend reforms to boost farmers’ profits, and we’re ensuring farmers get a bigger share of food contracts across our schools, hospitals, and prisons.”
Planning and Infrastructure Bill heralds ‘top-down State control’
I’ve just been reading the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, prompted to do so by what I’d picked up from the Planning Reform Working Paper on Development and Nature Recovery. Yes, I really do know how to enjoy myself.
My attention was particularly drawn to the proposal in the working paper that developers in future will not be required to carry out environmental mitigation on site, but will pay a sum of money to a “delivery body” to carry out “strategic” works somewhere else.
The paper asserted that the government would make development easier, but still protect the environment.
It said that site-specific actions “may be effective in addressing the specific impact of a proposal, [but] by not taking a strategic view, we may miss opportunities to support wider objectives for the environment, land use, and public amenity”.
The words “strategic” and “strategically” were used many times, and the intention explicitly stated: “moving more responsibility for planning and implementing these strategic actions onto the state”.
Joy Bowes, a former solicitor, divides her time between Suffolk and her partner’s 223ha Lake District hill farm. It is home to a herd of Galloway cattle. Higher Level Stewardship conservation work has been carried out, with plans for more trees under Countryside Stewardship.
It was obvious that “somewhere else” will mean “on someone else’s land” and, having read the bill, I now know that Natural England will be authorised to compulsorily purchase farmland, or indeed any sort of open land, including allotments, to carry out environmental works.
This may explain why, in a recent interview, Natural England’s chair Tony Juniper seemed strangely unperturbed by the curtailing of site-specific environmental protection.
In brief, the bill says Natural England will draw up and consult on an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) for an area, setting out what environmental features need protection, what conservation measures are needed, and a schedule of the levies to pay for them.
Once the EDP is in place, any development which will affect a protected feature will be subject to the levy.
The developer pays the levy and builds its development, Natural England does something strategic with the money, the public gets the houses, factories or whatever, and nature doesn’t suffer at all. What could go wrong?
Well, during my years in local government, I saw how hard it could be to agree with developers’ payment for things such as highway improvements. And I can’t imagine that agreeing the levy will be much easier.
Local people may not be happy to lose an established woodland on the promise of new woodland five miles away.
Habitats or wildlife lost from a site surely can’t just be replaced or relocated elsewhere.
Then there is the matter of making sure the off-site mitigation is actually carried out in a timely fashion so we don’t end up with lots of development yet no compensatory benefit to the environment.
I am also uneasy that so much power will be devolved to Natural England. Not only will it determine, through EDPs, what environmental works are needed, it will also decide what land it requires to achieve this.
The bill even provides for a second go if the first mitigation is ineffective. I worry that this will allow a state-sponsored body to appropriate as much land as it can, to the detriment of affected landowners.
The government argues that, at present, it is too easy for bats, newts and human “blockers” to hold up essential development.
The bill opens the door to too much top-down state control and a complete disregard for the people who have to live with the consequences.
Alongside other planning reforms, it is proposed to include wider compulsory purchase (CP) powers and restrict compensation to landowners.
A consultation published on 19 December 2024 sets out reforms that expand on provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.
These allow “hope value” to be removed in circumstances where social and affordable housing is being built, also for educational and NHS purposes, providing there is justification in the public interest.
What is proposed?
A key proposal is to extend this ability to disapply hope value to include CP orders made on behalf of parish, town or community councils by local authorities under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972.
This would apply where the schemes involved are providing affordable or social housing.
“It’s unusual for town and community councils to be considering compulsory purchase because of the risks involved, unless they are in a joint venture with a developer,” says planning lawyer Fergus Charlton, a partner with Michelmores.
“This is pushing in the direction for the delivery of more housing and makes it more likely that a landowner will be served with a compulsory purchase order,” he says.
The consultation refers to the government’s desire that landowners should get a “fair” rather than “elevated” value for land taken by CP. However, “fair” in this instance simply means agricultural value.
Henry Church is a senior director with CBRE UK, a commercial real estate service and investment company.
He also has a long-standing relationship with the Compulsory Purchase Association, an independent organisation promoting best practice in the field.
Speaking in a personal capacity as a CP practitioner, Henry takes issue with the words “fair” and “elevated”.
“What this is seeking is for there to be payment for existing use value, ignoring any potentiality in the land,” he says.
“This approach goes against the principle of equivalence, which says that those subject to compulsory purchase should be put in no worse a position as a result of the process.”
Like many others, he thinks that the move could reduce the amount of land coming forward for housing, as those promoting it may fear spending to do so only to have it subsequently taken from them by CP.
“By disapplying hope value, you’re not getting rid of that value, you’re giving it to someone else.
“You need to be responsible about what you do with that value. So who does it go to – the local authority or the developer?
The cost of land is a factor in development, but disapplying hope value as a means of addressing the rate of housebuilding is too simplistic and risks land not being brought forward, says Henry.
Other measures
The consultation goes further in seeking to allow land to be compulsorily purchased without hope value.
The government is considering a general power to enable the secretary of state in England or the ministers in Wales to make a direction to remove hope value from compensation for a specific category of sites where this is justified in the public interest.
It suggests this could include land allocated for residential development in an adopted plan but which has not come forward for development.
This could bring a much wider range of farmland into the net of CP with no hope value, while some commentators have interpreted it as being aimed at those holding potential development land but not yet developing it – often referred to as land banking.
Land costs and development
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) has long argued that land costs are a relatively small part of total development costs.
Compulsory purchase compensation aims to put those affected in the same position as if their land had not been taken.
However, this is rarely the outcome, says CLA chief surveyor Andrew Shirley.
The ability to remove hope value was introduced by the previous government and criticised by him as singling out land value as if that was going to solve the problem.
“A key consideration for the valuation process is what the land might be worth if sold on the open market by a willing seller,” he says, also criticising the planning process for delays and the recent revision of the National Planning Policy Framework for offering nothing to the rural economy.
“Hope value is real value, not a made-up value,” says Andrew.
“If a developer were to buy a field they would pay a value to reflect its development potential. Removing hope value [from the CP process] means the only person not making money from it is the landowner.”
Opportunity to develop before new laws
The planning and infrastructure bill may take one to two years to become law.
In the meantime, the CLA’s message is that is if someone feels they have development potential on their land, they should promote it, submit it for planning and/or sell or develop it, says Andrew.
If the proposals become law, it is expected that one result will be more joint ventures between local planning authorities and developers, whereby the developers fund or part-fund the compulsory purchase process in order to access the development land subject to the CP order.
Compulsory purchase powers
Compulsory purchase (CP) is a legal process by which land can be taken without the consent of the owner.
These powers are granted to local authorities, government departments and to other public and private bodies by legislation.
This includes mayoral combined authorities and other public bodies, including Homes England.
CP powers can only be used if it is deemed that there is a compelling case in the public interest to do so – for example, for infrastructure projects such as railways, roads, energy, electricity infrastructure, schools, hospitals, housing, and urban regeneration.
The government says that the proposed changes to the CP regime aim to speed up decision-making, reduce the cost of the process and ensure the compensation paid to landowners is fair.
Other changes in the government’s consultation
Where a CP is proposed and a direction to remove hope value is sought and opposed, the government wants the decision to be made by a planning inspector rather than the secretary of state or a minister.
Also, where a “no hope value” CP order has been made but there are no objections to the order, the government then the acquiring authority would have the power to confirm the decision, rather than the secretary of state or minister.
This would require an amendment to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
Law Commission compulsory purchase review
At the same time as the government’s consultation on compulsory purchase, the Law Commission of England and Wales is reviewing the system and also launched a consultation on 20 December 2024.
This work began in February 2023 and will suggest how to consolidate, modernise and simplify compulsory purchase legislation, with a resulting draft bill proposing technical changes to compulsory purchase procedure and compensation.
There have been frequent calls for reform of the complex and dated CP legislation, some of which dates back to 1845.
Responses can also be made online or by emailing CompulsoryPurchaseConsultation@communities.gov.uk
or by post addressed to:
Compulsory Purchase Consultation Team
Planning – Development Management Division
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Floor 3, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
As much of the United Kingdom celebrates the coronation of King Charles III, his attitude towards the 15.6 billion Crown Estate portfolio he inherits as the reigning monarch will be crucial.
Tracking just how and when the monarchy assembled the most sparkling jewels in the portfolio, which also includes a glittering array of famous residences and monuments, sheds a modern light on the country’s history and expectations about what its property should deliver.
The Crown Estate essentially dates from 1066, when William, Duke of Normandy, claimed the English throne and invaded from what is now Northern France. Land across the country formally transferred as part of the “Norman Conquest” to William the Conqueror “in right of The Crown” due to his so called “right of conquest” as the new King.
By 1086, the King had famously commissioned the Domesday Book to quantify all the land in his kingdom who owned it, who lived there, and how much the land was worth and therefore how much tax he could charge. In essence, the King had become the first real estate valuer and the inventor of the precursor to the dreaded business rates as paid by almost every commercial property owner in the country. That underlying ownership of the Crown remains to this day because there “remains a presumption in favour of the Crown” unless it can be proved that land belongs to someone else
The Sovereign’s estates have always been used to raise revenue for wars and other strategems, and over time large areas have been given away as a method for the monarch to reward or punish subjects, shore up power bases or simply on a whim. The latter has prompted some of English history’s most chaotic periods Edward II’s decision to give most of Cornwall to his favourite Piers Gaveston still sticks in the craw 700 years later.
Land retained by William the Conqueror and his successors was divided into royal manors, each managed separately by a seneschal a governor or administrative officer and the period between the reigns of William I and Queen Anne was one of almost constant disposal of lands to an in-vogue courtier or to shore up support.
null (Getty Images) Edward I’s castles still dot the Welsh landscape. (Getty Images)
Throughout this time there were famous land grabbers and equally famous land losers. Edward I extended his possessions into Wales with a massive and still visible castle building programme, while James (VI of Scotland and I of England) had his own Crown lands in Scotland which were combined with the Crown lands of England and Wales when he took on the top job in England.
The estate fluctuated massively in size and value for centuries, but by 1760, when George III of American Independence fame acceded to the throne, it had been reduced to a relatively small size producing nowhere near the income the King required to stay above water.
By that time taxes had become the principal source of revenue for Parliament as it administered the country and an agreement was reached that the Crown lands would be managed on behalf of the government and any surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King received a fixed annual payment, until recently known as the Civil List. This agreement has been signed up to by every succeeding Sovereign. Crown lands in Scotland were included in the arrangement from 1832.
In 1955 a Government Committee recommended that to avoid confusion between government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed the Crown Estate and should be managed by an independent board.
The estate is managed by a Board who “maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it” as their duty. The estate is an independent commercial business with the monarch owning the land it manages as long as he or she is on the throne.
So how much revenue does it produce? Over the decade to 2021, the estate had, according to the government’s website, contributed 2.6 billion to the public purse, although the Crown estimates the figure at 3 billion. In the 10 years prior to that, from 2002 to 2012, it generated 2 billion, according to Crown Estate filings.
For the most recent financial year of 2021-22, it made a net revenue profit of 312.7 million, 43.4 million higher than the prior year and ahead of its agreed target of 269 million as it bounced back from a difficult lockdown period, but still below pre-pandemic levels.
So what exactly does the Crown Estate own and how did its most famous addresses come into its possession?
The Crown has in recent years been reorganising itself into a single group business with four strategic business units London, Regional, Marine, and Windsor and Rural.
AERIAL, TOP DOWN: Flying above a large blue pond full of wild salmon in the middle of the ocean. Spectacular aerial view of countless fish jumping out of water underneath a net covering a farming pool (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The King owns the coastline and all the seabed to 12 nautical miles, including the rights to farm fish. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)
Marine Business
In recent times the Crown’s financial results have been massively boosted by the strength of its highly profitable marine portfolio. That increased in value by 22% to 5 billion in its most recent reported year.
It owns virtually all the seabed around the United Kingdom out to 12 nautical miles (the territorial sea limit), and controls who can operate in much of this space by awarding the rights to operate on the seabed via leases. It is an increasingly important and valuable role as it is responsible for allowing activities including oil and gas pipelines, marine aggregate extraction, fish farming, and telecommunications and power cables. The growth of offshore wind is driving significant revenues.
How does the Monarch own it?
The King’s ownership of the British coastline by convention goes all the way back to William the Conqueror. But there was no formal legislation declaring ownership until relatively recently, prompted by the discovery of North Sea oil and gas which led to the boundary-setting 1964 Continental Shelf Act.
The ownership of oil and gas on land and at sea rests with the Crown, but since 1934 the government has been in control of royalties and assigning drilling rights. In a highly lucrative intervention though, the Crown Estate was given the right to collect royalties from wind and wave power by the Labour government’s 2004 Energy Act.
The Crown Estate owns the land under the distinctive department store, Liberty’s. (CoStar)
London Business
The London estate comprises 10 million square foot of mixed-use central London property, primarily around Regent Street and St Jamess in the West End. Queen Elizabeth II’s reign saw radical changes in how the Crown manages its core London portfolio as it has wrestled with how to make Regent Street and the West End a cleaner, greener and more accessible destination.
Last year, the value of its London portfolio remained flat at 7.7 billion, which reflected, the Crown said, improved trading conditions compared with preceding years battered by the pandemic.
Regent Street
The most famous address in the portfolio is Regent Street, with the Crown owning the vast majority of its entire mile-and-a-half length that splices through the centre of London’s West End shopping and leisure district via its curved Grade II listed facades, some of the most impressive architecture in the city.
The street was built in 1819 and named after the then Prince Regent, later George IV, under the direction of architect John Nash. It is now best-known for its flagship retail stores, including Liberty, Hamleys and the Apple store, but it came into being as one of the first examples of real town planning in the country, and one of the world’s first purpose-built shopping streets.
The idea was to build a thoroughfare linking Marylebone Park, now Regent’s Park, with the Prince Regent’s Carlton House. The road ran through Marylebone Park with a lease to the government for 99 years from 1811 at the end of which it would revert to the Crown. Regent Street was then redeveloped between 1895 and 1927 under the control of the Office of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues, the former Crown Estate.
By the 1970s, the street had begun to noticeably decline thanks to under-investment and competition from neighbouring areas including the adjoining Oxford Street and shopping centres away from central London such as Brent Cross. By 2002, as it mounted a fight back, the Crown initiated a major redevelopment and to fund it made the then-radical decision to bring in investment partners for the first time.
It began a 750 million rejuvenation aimed at enticing international retailers and investment partners. At the same time it planned to rebalance its investment portfolio in favour of more regional investment to generate returns. The Crown is not able to borrow, so to free up capital for reinvestment in the estate and elsewhere, it went to market with a 25% stake in its Regent Street properties. In 2010 it signed an agreement that saw it sell the stake to Norwegian sovereign wealth fund Norges Bank Investment Management for 448 million.
The acquisition was Norges’ first major transaction after it was allowed to invest in real estate, ushering in a period of substantial reinvestment of the country’s oil riches in global property. Immediately, Norges agreed to help the Crown fund a 200 million retail and leisure investment called W4 on the west side of Regent Street. In 2017 Norges doubled its stake in the 20 Air Street development with the Crown to 50%.
The Crown Estate moved its headquarters from Carlton House Terrace to Regent Street in 2006.
1 St James’s Square is one of the genteel buildings typical of the area. (CoStar)
St James’s
The Crown has extensive ownership of around 3.5 million square feet across St James’s, a square mile of residential, retail and offices surrounded by some of the country’s most famous sights and tourist attractions.
The Crown’s involvement here dates back to Henry VIII, who had St James’s Palace built in the 1530s on the site of a former leper hospital. By 1837 Queen Victoria decided to move the royal family’s principal residence to Buckingham Palace just up the road, a site George III had bought for his wife in 1762.
With its redevelopment of Regent Street as a template, in 2010 the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan made its first direct real estate investment outside of Canada by acquiring a 50% 100 million stake in the Crown’s St James’s Gateway,
Then in 2013, as part of it 10-year investment strategy for the area, it established a joint venture that saw Canadian real estate company Oxford Properties take a 50% stake in the 320 million commercial element of its St James’s Market scheme.
The deal established a strategic partnership based on two 50:50 limited partnerships that each own 150-year leasehold interests in two blocks located between Regent Street and Haymarket.
Regional Business
The Crown’s regional portfolio includes prominent retail and leisure destinations across England, as well as a strategic land portfolio with large mixed-use development and regeneration opportunities. It also owns business parks, logistics and warehousing.
The value of the portfolio increased by 0.2 billion to 1.7 billion last year, reflecting improved investor sentiment, and higher footfall and better trading at its out-of-town retail parks. It has said the future success of these holdings will depend on re-mixing and repurposing where conditions allow.
More broadly through its strategic land ownerships, it is reviewing the potential for mixed-use development. It has continued to progress long-term plans for 350 hectares of land to the east of Hemel Hempstead, to accommodate up to 1.75 million square feet of commercial alongside approximately 3,100 homes. It is also pushing on with massive development plans at its 12-building Cambridge Business Park office campus, already home to the BBC among others. It is promoting plans for a further 500,000 square feet of offices, 500 homes and 50,000 square foot of shops, and community and cultural facilities.
Retail Parks
The most dramatic new investment drive in recent years has been into retail parks. The Crown Estate now owns over 5 million square feet of regional retail and leisure destinations across 17 assets, with over 1.3 billion of the gross value outside of London.
Well-known destinations include Fosse Park in Leicester, Rushden Lakes in Northamptonshire, and joint ventures at Princesshay in Exeter, Westgate in Oxford and Crown Point in Leeds. More recently it has been seeking to reduce its exposure with strategic sales.
How does the Monarch own it?
As the Crown Estate looked to invest in rejuvenating its core London portfolio during the reign of Elizabeth II, it also looked to drive returns by building one of the largest retail park portfolios in the United Kingdom, often bringing in passive 50:50 joint venture investment partners.
In 2014 it bought the biggest asset the 560,000-square-foot Fosse Shopping Park in Leicester for 345.5 million establishing a 50:50 ownership partnership with China’s Gingko Tree Investment into the bargain, with the Crown Estate managing the asset on behalf of the partnership.
The transaction at the time brought total third party funds managed in joint ventures to over 1 billion and is the largest in the Crown Estate’s history.
Its other 16 retail parks are in places such as Newcastle, Aintree, Nottingham, Swansea, and Cheshire. A notable other transaction in this space in 2014 was its acquisition of Princesshay in Exeter in a 50:50 joint venture with TH Real Estate.
The Crown did not limit this investment drive to retail parks, and it has a major industrial warehouse and distribution estate. A standout is Magna Park in Milton Keynes, a 650,000-square-foot warehouse which it bought from Gazeley and Landsec for more than 72 million in 2007, just ahead of the financial crash.
ASCOT – JUNE 20: Queen Elizabeth ll and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh arrive in an open carriage on the fourth day of Royal Ascot on June 20, 2008 in Ascot, England. (Photo by Anwar Hussein/WireImage) (WireImage) Queen Elizabeth II, shown here with Prince Philip in 2008, loved Ascot, where the royals traditionally parade in carriages at the beginning of each day. (WireImage)
Windsor and Rural
The Crown looks after around 200,000 acres of land, including the Windsor Estate and a number of rural estates. As part of this the Crown also looks after one of Queen Elizabeth II’s favourite spots, Ascot Racecourse.
The rural portfolio of agricultural land and property primarily comprises tenanted arable working farms, includes estates such as Gorhambury in Hemel Hempstead and Putteridge near Luton.
Income from the portfolio is primarily derived from farm and residential rents, alongside visitor, filming and events and forestry income from Windsor. Last years profits increased to 18 million, as the visitor operation at the Castle rebounded strongly from the pandemic.
How does the Crown own it?
The original Windsor Castle was built in the 11th century, after the Norman conquest of England. Since the time of Henry I, 1100-1135, it has been used by the reigning monarch and is the longest-occupied palace in Europe.
SANDRINGHAM, UNITED KINGDOM – OCTOBER 03: Aerial view of Queen Elizabeth II’s Country residence, Sandringham Hall on October 3, 2006 in Sandringham, England. This Jacobean Country house is surrounded by 20,000 acres of Norfolk parkland. (Photograph by David Goddard/Getty Images) (Getty Images) Under Queen Elizabeth II, the Royal Family traditionally spent Easter at Sandringham. (Getty Images)
Homes and Monuments
The Crown and other Royal estates own vast swathes of real estate across the United Kingdom including famous addresses such as Buckingham Palace, Holyrood Palace and the Tower of London as well as landmarks such as Stonehenge.
According to a recent investigation by Forbes these properties include at least seven palaces, 10 castles, 12 homes, 56 holiday cottages and 14 ancient ruins held by the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall in right of the Crown for the duration of his reign. Forbes reports that others are controlled by the monarchy itself in trust for his successors and the nation, while another four properties are held by two foundations which the King established when he was Prince of Wales. Forbes estimates all of this real estate to be worth around $42 billion (33.54 billion) in value with Buckingham Palace the most expensive at an estimated 1.3 billion.
But a number stand out as they are owned privately by King Charles, who is free to do with them as he pleases. They include Balmoral in Scotland and Sandringham Castle in Norfolk.
How does the Monarch own it?
Balmoral was bought in 1852 by Prince Albert as a gift for his wife, Queen Victoria, a huge fan of the Scottish Highlands. Sandringham was bought as a country home for Edward VII, who was then Prince of Wales, in 1862 by Queen Victoria.
On the abdication of Edward VIII in order to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson, as Sandringham and Balmoral Castle were the private property of the monarch the new King George VI, Elizabeth II’s father, had to buy both properties for 300,000 a price that caused much dispute between the new King and his brother.
Another privately owned asset is Highgrove House, a country residence in Gloucestershire which Prince Charles bought in 1980 for 865,000 and which was recently inherited by Prince William under the Duchy of Cornwall.
Other interesting assets owned by the Crown include the Oval cricket ground and the Savoy Chapel in Westminster, the private church of the reigning monarch. Stonehenge was given to the nation, and so the Crown, in 1918 by Cecil Chubb.
