Record net migration and the UK housing bubble

Migration Watch: Record net migration and the rising demand for housing [follow this link to Migration Watch site for dynamic graphs]

8 June, 2023

Summary

1. If net migration to the UK is allowed to continue at the present record level of 606,000 per year, the UK population is projected to grow by more than 15 million by 2046 – far surpassing the level of 80 million before mid-century. It is estimated that this would result in the need to build between six and eight million more homes – equal to between 15 and 18 more cities the size of Birmingham.^[1] In contrast, if net migration were reduced to 100,000 per year or less, the impact of the housing shortage would be eased and young people would have a brighter prospect of putting their feet on the property ladder. Doing so would also preserve more beautiful UK countryside from being bulldozed to make way for housing.

Key points

• The UK population is now 67 million but new Migration Watch UK projections estimate that it will increase to between 83 and 87 million by 2046 if net migration continues at the record level of just over 600,000 per year.
• Immigration is the largest component of demand for additional housing
• Population growth over that period would mean the need to build between six and eight million more homes, depending upon assumptions.
• That is equivalent to between 15 and 18 cities the size of Birmingham, which in 2021 had 423,500 households (according to Census statistics).
• Cutting net migration levels to 100,000 per year or less would help young people to get on the property ladder and preserve more of our beautiful UK countryside from being lost forever to housebuilding.

Introduction

2. High immigration has worsened the UK’s housing crisis by injecting significant additional demand when there is already insufficient available accommodation. This means higher prices. Government analysis suggests that high immigration since the late 1990s helped to drive up house prices by a fifth.^[2] As a government minister put it recently: “It is obvious that a rising population due to net migration puts pressure on housing supply, ultimately leading to rising prices.”^[3] A housing analyst explained: “The worsening housing shortage makes properties less affordable as rising demand for homes and insufficient supply contribute to pushing prices further up.”^[4]

3. Immigration is the largest component of rising demand. The most recent set of household projections produced by the Office for National Statistics, based on 2018 data, suggest that immigration at a level of net migration to England which is around half the present level would account for a majority (57%) of additional households during the 25 years until 2043.^[5]

4. The government has set a target (now ‘advisory’) to build 300,000 homes per year. This target was calculated on the basis of underlying demographic factors, household formation rates and trends in the housing market as well as ongoing net migration levels. However, the current level of immigration far outstrips the target (which is based on 2016 analysis of 2012 statistics). One analyst has argued that when household formation and market trends are taken into account, England actually needed to build 461,000 homes in 2022 to cope with demand that has been hugely boosted by high immigration.^[6] Yet the annual increase in the dwelling stock in England has averaged only 180,000 per year over the past decade, while the number of homes added in 2022 was just 235,000. The insufficient supply of homes will only be exacerbated as high immigration continues to drive up demand.

5. Some commentators suggest boosting housebuilding is the answer. But tackling this deepening crisis requires immigration to be reduced. Since the last record spike in numbers immigration in 2015, the drive to bulldoze UK countryside to make way for more homes has become more intense. The number of local authorities giving way to applications for building on green belt land has risen in recent years. Government statistics show that approximately 65 square miles of supposedly ‘protected’ land was set aside for housebuilding between 2015 and 2021.^[7] And apart from protected land being added in the North East of England, during 2021/22 every other region saw net losses in green belt land.^[8]

6. Migration Watch UK estimates that, should net migration remain at 606,000 per annum, it would mean the need to build housing equal to between 15 and 18 cities the size of Birmingham just to accommodate the population rise over that period, not even accounting for the future housing needs of the base population. Where would all of these homes be built? Which areas of natural beauty would fall victim to the bulldozer if this were to occur?

The impact of immigration

7. Over the past 25 years, the UK population has increased by nearly nine million, from just over 58 million in 1996 to 67 million in 2021. This has meant the need for more than four million more homes. Average household size has fluctuated slightly above and then below the level of 2.4 people per household. It now stands at 2.35 people per household.

8. Between 1996 and 2022, net migration from overseas to the UK has run at an average level of 190,000 per year. However, the five-year average level has tripled from 113,000 between 1996 and 2000 to 347,000 between 2018 and 2022. The record level of net migration for the UK was reached in 2022 when 606,000 more people immigrated to the UK than emigrated – more than double the average net migration level during the twenty years before that, which was about a quarter of a million (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Net migration to the UK, 1996 to 2022 (ONS long-term migration estimates).

Share of additional households headed by those born overseas

9. According to the Quarterly Labour Force Survey of private households, the number of households headed by persons born who were outside the UK rose by 2.7 million between 1990 and 2019. The number increased from 1.6 million out of a total of 22.6 million in 1990 (7%) to 4.3 million, out of just over 27 million (15% of the total) by 2019.

10. As Table 1 below shows, since 1995, 65% of the additional households created in the UK for whom birth place data was recorded have been ‘headed’ by a person born overseas.

Table 1: Numbers and percentage of increase in households by place of birth of household reference person^[9] for different periods up to 2019 (ONS Labour Force Survey).

Period	All households	All households with birthplace data	UK born household reference person	Non UK-born household reference person
1990-2019	5057986	4717479	2056352	2662127
Percentage of increase			43.6	56.4
1995-2019	4116130	3700980	1286160	2415820
Percentage of increase			34.8	65.3

Population projections upon which these estimates are based

11. The findings of this paper are based upon UK population projections – produced by Migration Watch UK – for the period from 2021 until 2046. One of the key variables in population projections is the question of what the total fertility rate (or TFR, i.e. the average number of children that born to a female over their lifetime) is likely to be going forward.

12. To provide historical context, during the period between 1996 and 2021, the UK’s TFR has fallen from just over 1.90 births per woman in 2010 and 2012 to just 1.53 births per woman in 2021 – well below replacement level. See Figure 2 below.

13. For the first set of population projections contained in this paper, the TFR is estimated to continue at the level of 1.53. The use of such an assumption is debateable as the lowest recent TFR in 2021 may have been inextricably linked to the unique conditions of the Covid pandemic which persisted into that year. Indeed, there was a slight uptick in TFR in 2021 in England and Wales. However, it remains to be seen whether such a trend will continue.

Figure 2: Total fertility rate for the UK, 1975 to 2021 (ONS births data).

14. However, it is also possible that the UK’s TFR will return to levels last seen in 2015/16 as a result of an improvement in the general economic and political outlook and a reduction of inflation. In order to provide an upper range for our population projections, an alternative set of projections includes a conjectural assumption of 1.77 births per woman going forward.

15. Figures 3 and 4 show the population projections at varying levels of net migration until the mid-2040s assuming TFR of both 1.53 and 1.77 respectively. It must be remembered that projections only show the implications for the future if the initial assumptions continue to hold. The lower level of TFR shows a range between the population initially remaining stable (before beginning a decline) at a level of net migration of 100,000 per year by 2046, and an increase to 83 million should the level of net migration remain at 606,000 per year.

Figure 3: Projected population of the UK 2021-2046 (millions) at various levels of net migration. TFR = 1.53. Migration Watch UK analysis.

16. The higher level of TFR suggests a population in the range of between 70 million (at net migration of 100,000 per year) and a higher potential population level of nearly 87 million by 2046 if net migration continues to run at the present record level of 606,000 per year.

Figure 4: Projected population of the UK 2021-2046 (millions) at various levels of net migration. TFR = 1.77. Migration Watch UK analysis.

Household growth, household size and population change

17. Change in the number of households is driven by population trends, adjustments in the age-structure of the population, social factors and birth and death rates – all of which influence the number of people living by themselves and in households of different sizes.

18. For most of the 20th century the number of households rose faster than population growth. Households in 1911 had an average of more than four people per dwelling, but this fell to just under 2.4 by 2022.

Figure 5: Average UK household size (number of persons per household) since 1996 (ONS).

Assumed household size for these projections

19. Our projections are based upon a household size going forward between 2.3 and 2.5 people per household, with a mid-point estimate of 2.4 people per household. We explain the use of this assumption below.

20. In their most recent household projections (principal projection, 2018-based figures), the ONS have suggested that the average household size may fall to 2.24 by the early 2040s. Such a fall would be broadly line with the trend that has seen household size fall from 2.42 in 1996 to 2.36 in 2022 (see Figure 5 above). Over the period of projection, on these assumptions, household size would average 2.3 (2018 to 2043).^[10] We take this latter figure as the lower bound of our assumed household size as it appears to represent the latest indication of the ONS view on projected household size in the period up until the 2040s.

21. For an upper boundary of estimated household size, we take into account the fact that migrant-led household sizes are larger on average than those led by UK-born people. ^[11] Net migration levels are now at a record high – and a growing proportion of population growth has been the direct or indirect result of immigration (this share having risen from 70% in 2012 to 90% in 2019). This might exert upward pressure on household size. For example, in London – which received net overseas migration totalling 1.2 million between 2001 and 2019 and where around half of current heads of households were born outside of the UK – household size has risen significantly, up from 2.35 to 2.69.^[12] However, other factors (e.g. the increase in the number of people living alone) could counteract any such effect. We take 2.5 as our upper limit of household size across the projection period.

22. We take the mid-point between 2.3 and 2.5 as the basis for our estimate, i.e. 2.4 people per household. The projections assume a constant ratio of household size to population size. They take no account of changes in the distribution of household size, for example the increase of single-person households of older people.

Potential impact on household numbers as a result of population change

a) Lower scenario (Total Fertility Rate: 1.53)

23. In order to calculate what the above might mean for the change in the number of households, it is first necessary to calculate the total share of the UK population which consists of the ‘household population’ i.e. that part of the population living in private households, not in communal establishments of various kinds.^[13] The total household population in 2018 accounted for 98% of the total UK population in the ONS’s mid-year estimate. We therefore take this as the basis for our proportion of the household population as a share of projected UK population going forward.

24. We divide projected population totals by 2.4 people per household. This indicates projected change in the number of households at different levels of migration. However, it needs to be stressed that these projections do not take into account factors such as household formation rates or housing market trends, nor do they account for the future additional housing needs of the base UK population. Table 2 below shows our estimates using the TFR assumption of 1.53 births per woman. They indicate that net migration of 606,000 per year would drive a total population increase of nearly 16 million over the 25-year period, with 6.5 million more households resulting from such growth alone.^[14] Again, these numbers would be in addition to the housebuilding that is always needed even in the absence of any population growth. Cutting net migration to 100,000 per year would greatly reduce the pressure of increased demand for housing compared with 606,000.

Table 2: Estimated increase in the number of households to 2046 at different levels of projected population growth by migration variant. TFR: 1.53. Migration Watch UK analysis. These projected numbers would be in addition to the housebuilding that is always needed even in the absence of any population growth.

Population projections at different migration variants (TFR: 1.53)	Net migration: 100,000 per year	Net migration: 245,000 per year	Net migration: 350,000 per year	Net migration: 488,000 per year	Net migration: 606,000 per year
Population change: 2021-2046	minus 196,000	5,586,000	7,644,000	12,054,000	15,778,000
Estimated change in number of households (2021-46) at average household size of 2.4	minus 82,000	2,327,500	3,185,000	5,022,500	6,574,167
Added homes needed per year due to population growth	N/A	93,100	127,400	200,900	262,967

b) Higher scenario (Total Fertility Rate: 1.77)

25. Table 3 below shows estimated household growth by 2046 under a population projection scenario including an assumed TFR of 1.77 births per woman.

26. The projections suggest that if net migration continues at the present level of 606,000 per year, the population would rise to just under 87 million over 25 years (an increase of nearly 19 million), resulting in an increase of nearly eight million households. This would mean the need to build more than 310,000 homes per year on the basis of population increase over the period alone (i.e. additional to the needs of the ‘base’ population).

27. In contrast, a net migration scenario of 100,000 per year, even at a TFR of 1.77, only increases the population by 2.4 million, meaning less than a million more households over the period (40,000 more per year).

Table 3: Estimated increase in the number of households at different levels of projected population growth by migration variant. TFR: 1.77. Migration Watch UK analysis. NB These projected numbers would be in addition to the housebuilding that is always needed even in the absence of any population growth.

Population projections at different migration variants (TFR: 1.77)	Net migration: 100,000 per year	Net migration: 245,000 per year	Net migration: 350,000 per year	Net migration: 488,000 per year	Net migration: 606,000 per year
Population change: 2021-2046	2,352,000	7,056,000	10,486,000	14,994,000	18,816,000
Estimated change in number of households (2021-46) at average household size of 2.4	980,000	2,940,000	4,369,170	6,247,500	7,840,000
Added homes needed per year due to population growth	39,200	117,600	174,767	249,900	313,600

Conclusion

28. In 2021, while giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, then Home Secretary Priti Patel admitted that the UK ‘simply do[es] not have the infrastructure or the accommodation’ to meet demand created by those arriving from abroad.^[15] Given the UK was already in the midst of an acute housing shortage, it is relevant to ask why the government enacted policy changes that would drive immigration up to levels never seen before in British history. Ministers despite having been elected on clear and repeated manifesto promises to do the very opposite. As the number of arrivals from abroad continues to rise very sharply due to record work, study and family visas, refugee immigration running into hundreds of thousands per year and the untrammelled flow of illegal boats across the English Channel, the UK’s housing crisis has no end in sight. It is set to worsen unless urgent action is taken now to significantly lower the level of immigration to the UK.

29. Immigration has driven up house prices, making it more difficult more many to afford a mortgage deposit. Such trends are set to continue as added demand from overseas arrivals skyrockets. Indeed, this paper has shown that, if current levels of immigration continue, the UK will have to build between 15 and 18 more cities the size of Birmingham to house the growing UK population; a population that would be on course to hit between 83 and 87 million by 2046. To urgently ease congestion strains and crippling pressure on housing, land, community amenities and the environment, it is essential that the government reduces net migration to the UK to less than 100,000 per year. As well as helping to ease the housing crisis, this would also protect more of the UK’s irreplaceable countryside from being bulldozed and lost forever.

Footnotes

1. Census figures for 2021 show that Birmingham presently has 423,500 households with a population of 1.1 million people.
2. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government bulletin, ‘Analysis of the determinants of house price changes’, April 2018, URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste… N_Ad_Hoc_SFR_House_prices_v_PDF.pdf
3. Parliamentary answer, 31 May 2023. The Minister added: “There is evidence suggesting that immigration has contributed to rising house prices. The impact on prices in a local area of course depends on local supply and a variety of other factors. The Migration Advisory Committee found in 2018 that at a local authority level a 1% increase in population due to net migration increased house prices by 1%. DLUHC internal analysis supports a link between net migration and rising house prices.” URL: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-05-23/%31%38%36%34%38%30
4. Aynsley Lammin, ‘Record migration is making the housing crisis worse’, The Sunday Times, 28 May 2023, URL: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/record-migration-is-making-the… e%20much%20higher%20than%20expected.
5. The 57% figure is calculated by subtracting the increase under a zero migration scenario from the increase envisioned by the ONS’s high migration scenario (at 263,000 per year to England – about half of the present level of net migration). This would mean 2.7 million homes needing to be built due to future immigration alone out of a total increase over the period of 4.7 million (or 57%). See our January 2021 paper, ‘Impact of immigration on demand for homes in England’, URL: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/486/impact-of-imm… tion-on-demand-for-homes-in-england ONS 2018-based household projections, published June 2020, URL: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationand… holdprojectionsforengland/2018based
6. Karl Williams in CapX, ‘Thanks to migration, we’re running up a down escalator when it comes to housing’, June 2023, URL: https://capx.co/thanks-to-migration-were-running-up-a-down-escalator-when-it-comes-to-housing/
7. For the 2020/21 green belt statistics, see here. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-green-be… england-2020-21-statistical-release Also read our piece from March 2021. URL: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2021/03/12/save-our-green-s… storing-sense-to-immigration-policy
8. Gov.UK, ‘Local authority green belt: England 2021-22 – statistical release’, September 2022, URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-green-be… 2021-22-statistical-release#Table-4
9. According to the ONS, ‘a ‘household reference person’ (HRP) is (current definition, post-2001) the householder, who is the household member who owns the accommodation; is legally responsible for the rent; or occupies the accommodation as reward of their employment, or through some relationship to its owner who is not a member of the household. If there are joint householders, the one with the highest income is the HRP. If their income is the same, then the eldest one is the HRP.’ ONS, URL: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsa… holdsstatisticsexplained/2021-03-02
10. For example, see the ONS 2018-based household projections, principal projection, released June 2020, which estimates a household size of 2.24 in 2043.
11. The ONS has said: “In 2015, the average household size in England where the (head of household) was born in the UK was 2.3 residents per household. The average household size where the (head of household) was born outside the EU was 3.0 residents per household, which is slightly higher than that for households where the (head of household) was EU born (2.6 residents).” ONS, “International migration and the changing nature of housing in England – what does the available evidence show?”, May 2017, URL: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationand… theavailableevidenceshow/2017-05-25
12. Centre for Policy Studies, ‘The Case for Housebuilding’, URL: https://cps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CPS_THE_CASE_FOR_HOUSEBUILDING2.pdf
13. For the 2011 census a household was defined as: ‘one person living alone; or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room or sitting room or dining area’.
14. Again this number does not take into account household formation rates and housing market trends from which the current government target of 300,000 (which is based upon 2014 projections) is derived, so the actual number of homes needed may vary considerably.
15. The context of these comments was in discussion of the resettlement of Afghans to the UK following the seizure of power by the Taliban in August 2021. Q2, p.3 of then Home Secretary Priti Patel’s testimony to a House of Lords committee, October 2021, URL: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2914/pdf/ Also see our piece published in February 2022, URL: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/02/10/we-simply-do-not… accommodation-admits-home-secretary

 

Sputnik brings you all the latest breaking stories, expert analysis and videos from North and South America.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230606/lula-unveils-plan-to-legalize-indigenous-lands-halt-illegal-amazon-deforestation-by-2030-1110962675.html

Brazilian President Luiz Inᣩo Lula da Silva made major moves to reverse the environmental course set by his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, including unveiling a plan to halt illegal deforestation in the Amazon and to set aside huge amounts of the rainforest for government protection.

Brazil will once again become a global reference in sustainability, tackling climate change, and achieving targets for carbon emission reduction and zero deforestation, Lula said on Monday.

Called the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm), the plan will coordinate policy across more than a dozen Brazilian ministries. It calls for ending illegal deforestation by 2030 and achieving net zero deforestation, meaning just as much forest is being replanted as is cut down.

It will use satellite images to track criminal activity as well as to regularize land titles, and will create a rural registry to monitor correct forest management. It also aims to help degraded forests recover and increase the growth of native vegetation to undo some of the damage done by deforestation, which is driven in large part by cattle ranching.

The Brazilian Federation of Banks (Febraban) also announced that it would begin tying future lines of credit to Brazilian meat producers, including meatpackers and slaughterhouses, to environmental monitoring requirements. By the end of 2025, Brazilian meat companies that purchase cattle from Brazilian Amazon supplies will have to create a traceability and monitoring system for connections to illegal deforestation and the use of land in protected areas.

Febraban President Isaac Sidney said on Tuesday that banks are at the center of [Brazils] supply chain and that the move will encourage actions to foster an increasingly sustainable economy.

The financial sector is aware of the need to advance in managing and mitigating social, environmental, and climate risks in business dealings with their clients, while also directing more resources towards financing the transition to the Green Economy, he said.

Lula also announced that an Amazon reserve would be increased by 4,400 acres, and that another 140 million acres of public lands without special protection would be allocated – an area roughly the size of France.

In late April, Lula announced the creation of six new indigenous reserves, banning mining and most farming operations there. The areas cover some 1.5 million acres of the Amazon. Environment Minister Marina Silva said on Monday the government would begin the process of study toward creating more conservation units.

In addition, Lula also announced that Brazil, the worlds fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, would commit to reducing carbon emissions by 37% by 2025 and 43% by 2030. The commitment is a substantial increase from the levels set by Bolsonaro, who retreated from prior commitments.

Roughly half of Brazils carbon emissions come from deforestation, which often uses a crude slash and burn method that pours carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. One recent estimate found that 800 million trees were felled in two years to make way for cattle ranching.

The 77-year-old left-wing president returned to office in January 2023 after defeating Bolsonaro in the presidential election. Lula was previously president from 2003 to 2010, part of the wave of left-wing governments that swept Latin America in what was called a Pink Tide. Since returning to office, Lula has set about reversing course on many of the right-wing Bolsonaros policies, including on the environment, and pushing new efforts to build economic and political systems not centered on Europe and North America.

The Amazon represents half of the planets remaining rainforest, and 60% of it sits inside Brazils borders. Scientists have said that preserving the dense forest is key to efforts to combat climate change and keep the planet from warming to a level that could be dangerous to humans.

EU approves controversial Dutch farm buy-out plan to ‘meet climate goals’

Farmers have protested against the government scheme that will offer them 120 per cent of the value of their company if they agree to close

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/eu-approves-controversial-dutch-farm-buy-out-plan-to-meet-climate-goals/ar-AA1aDs7t

By Joe Barnes, BRUSSELS CORRESPONDENT 2 May 2023

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/02/eu-approves-controversial-dutch-farm-buy-out-plan/

The Netherlands has been given the go-ahead to start buying out thousands of farmers businesses in a bid to meet the European Union mandate on climate goals.

Under the 1.47 billion (1.3 billion) plan, entire farms located near nature reserves could be purchased by the government, with hundreds more farmers compensated for voluntarily closing their operations.

It forms part of the Hagues wider strategy for slashing nitrogen emissions in half by 2030 to comply with EU targets.

On Tuesday, the European Commission approved the Dutch governments proposals under the blocs state aid rules.

Brussels ruled that the buy-outs would not give farmers who receive them an unfair leg-up against international competitors on the Single Market and thus violate EU regulations.

Justifying the move earlier this year, Christianne van der Wal, minister of nature and nitrogen policy, said that the Netherlands had to cut nitrogen emissions from farms to build new housing and produce green energy.

There will first have to be nitrogen cuts before there is room for new development such as new houses and sustainable energy investments. It is our economic lockdown, she said. My message is not the message [farmers] want to hear.

She has previously described the scheme as wildly attractive.

Farmers operating near nature conservation areas will be offered 120 per cent of the value of their company if they agree to close their operations and promise not to restart elsewhere in the country or within the EU.

About 3,000 farmers who are considered among the countrys highest polluting have been identified under the scheme.

Dairy, pig and poultry farmers will be offered 100 per cent of their company’s value if they agree to close under a similar programme.

Protests from farmers

Dutch farmers have been on a collision course with the government for more than a year, while it grappled with the consequences of forcing its lucrative agricultural industry to cut emissions.

Protests against the climate-change targets have often turned violent, with manure and blazing hay bales used to block highways and supermarket distribution centres, leading to empty shelves on numerous occasions.

In March, Mark Rutte, the long-serving prime minister, received a major defeat in the regional elections as a farmers protest party scored a victory.

At risk of being undercut

Despite its small size, The Netherlands is one of the worlds agricultural powerhouses, being only second to the United States as a food producer and agricultural exporter.

Its farmers have argued that the new climate change rules placed them at risk of being undercut by cheap foreign imports.

They also complained that agriculture was being unfairly targeted compared with other polluting sectors such as transport.

The Dutch government has earmarked 25 billion (22 billion) to tackle nitrogen emissions, including compulsory buyouts and payments for reducing livestock numbers.

The courts have blocked an increasing number of construction projects designed to ease the countrys housing crisis until nitrogen levels have been reduced.

Improve the environment

Brussels decided the Dutch plan did not amount to a breach of the blocs state aid rules, which have been significantly loosened as a result of the interventions made by European governments during the coronavirus pandemic.

Margrethe Vestager, a vice-president of the European Commission, said the plan would lead to the voluntary closure of those farms most responsible for nitrogen emissions.

The schemes will improve the environment conditions in those areas, and will promote a more sustainable and environmentally friendly production in the livestock sector, without unduly distorting competition, she said.

The EUs approval of the scheme, which runs until February 2028, will last as long as Dutch farmers agree to a definitive closure of their operations.

The exact conditions for the buyout scheme will be published by the end of the month, with the government also exploring targeting other industries amid uproar from farmers.

‘The way the Windsors got their millions is a Royal RIP-OFF more in line with Henry VIII than a modern democracy,’ writes author and former government minister NORMAN BAKER

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11910185/The-Windsor-millions-right-Royal-RIP-says-former-government-minister-NORMAN-BAKER.html

• Author has led the way holding the Royal Family to account over huge wealth
• But they ‘use the tax system to their advantage’ and ‘evade awkward questions’
• Read here: Charles cant hide behind aides. His fingerprints are all over this

By Norman Baker Former Government Minister

Published: 07:00, 29 April 2023

It is a curious thing that our Royal Family was effectively bankrupt in 1760 when George III came to the throne, so much so that did a deal with Parliament to hand over Crown lands in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List.

Yet today, the Windsors are fabulously wealthy in their own right, with every senior member worth at least 20 million. One recent calculation put King Charles’s wealth at up to 480 million.

You have to ask how such a transformation came to pass.

There was a big hint recently when The Mail on Sunday revealed that the whole of Queen Elizabeth’s estate had been bequeathed to her son, King Charles, without a penny of tax being paid. Uniquely, the monarch does not pay death duties.

The Scilly Isles have been owned by the Duchy of Cornwall since the beginning of the 14th century. Today, all income from the Duchy goes to William, the Prince of Wales

And how much money was involved? Even back in 2001 The MoS calculated that the Queen was worth 1.15 billion, almost certainly an underestimate then, let alone now. Her stamp collection alone was put at 100 million. It is a safe bet to assume that what she bequeathed to Charles will have increased substantially.

At any rate, we can assume that the latest Monarch-to-Monarch transfer of wealth is a considerable loss to the exchequer.

So, just how much money have the Windsors accumulated?

Exact figures are hard to come by and no wonder: the Royal Family likes it that way. At every turn they have used the tax system to their advantage and a culture of secrecy to prevent awkward questions.

The highly unusual way they treat legacies is a good example.

Wills are public documents, as everyone knows. Indeed, they have always been open for inspection in this country as an essential safeguard to prevent theft and malpractice.

But uniquely the royals have secured an exemption meaning that, since 1911, their wills have been hidden from the public.

Royal wills are locked up in a metal safe behind an iron cage in Somerset House. And while over the years the scope of the Freedom of Information Act has been generally been extended, allowing enquiries about a greater range of public bodies, secrecy about the royals has gone in the opposite direction. Uniquely.

After pressure from Charles, the supply of information has dried up to a dribble.

The National Archives are releasing ever more of our historical documents as the years go by, and from earlier and earlier.

The Duchy of Lancaster, including the Whitewell Estate in the Forest of Bowland, is owned by the monarchy. It was passed directly from the late Queen to King Charles with no tax paid

But not royal ones. When I visited Kew, I found there were 3,629 closed files on the Royal Family. Some are closed for 100 years.

Worse, some files, especially those containing embarrassing financial information, are kept in the private royal archives in Windsor where they will disappear into a black hole, perhaps forever.

Where has all the Windsors money come from? The simple answer is that it all originates from the public purse, either directly or indirectly through unique tax breaks, then augmented by investments (again not properly taxed).

Take Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House, for example. Prince Albert had gone to the government, cap in hand, to say the Civil List the public subsidy in place since 1760 – was insufficient to cover royal duties.

But that was not true. When Parliament handed over more money, it was instead used to buy these two private properties, plus Osborne House, a Palladian mansion on the Isle of Wight.

Then there are the fabulously beneficial tax breaks. Unlike everyone else in the country, monarchs are exempt from death duties. So nothing was paid on the estimated 70 million left by the Queen Mother. (And where did that come from? Not winnings on the horses).

And nothing has been paid on the vast legacy, including private property, from the Queen to Charles. The cash-strapped Treasury is being deprived of millions by possibly the richest family in the country. Between 1952 and 1993 the Queen paid no income tax or corporation tax, and no income dividend tax.

In 2001, statisticians from Barclays Capital calculated that the 2m stock investment made by the Queen in 1951 would, 50 years later, be worth 1.4 billion. If tax had been paid, the residual figure would have been less than 300 million almost a billion pounds lost to the public purse from this one source alone.

2012: Royal Gravy Train Kicks In

But it was from 2012 that the royal gravy train really picked up speed. Because this was the year the Sovereign Grant Act came into force, sweeping away the long-established Civil List and replacing it with a generous new source of public funding.

The figures speak for themselves. Between 2001 and 2011, the old Civil List had been set at 7.9 million annually. In the most recent financial year, the Sovereign Grant payout to the Royal Family reached a staggering 86.3 million.

And the annual amount can only ever stay the same or go up. It can never go down. The Sovereign Grant Act overturned a settled way of doing things that had lasted more than 250 years.

In 1760, George III did a deal with the government: he would surrender land across Britain to the nation in return for money from the government to support him and his lifestyle.

As part of the deal the government would take over responsibility for funding the Armed Forces, the secret service, the judiciary and other public functions. Over the years, however, some Royals have looked at the performance of its former land and property, which is today known as the Crown Estates.

They have seen it prosper and have started to regret George III’s arrangement. If only the clock could be turned back

Royal wills are locked up in a metal safe behind an iron cage at Somerset House, London

The Duchy of Cornwall even owns the Oval, a test match venue and home to Surrey

Successive governments of all colours had resisted this suggestion, until former coalition Chancellor George Osborne disastrously agreed to re-establish the connection.

Now, 25 per cent of the profits from the Crown Estates go straight into the royal coffers.

Of course, if Charles really wants to recreate the position before 1760, that would require the monarch once again to personally fund the salaries and pensions of Ministers, judges and civil servants, and the costs of the Armed Forces and secret services, too.

It was to lose that heavy burden that George III agreed to a new arrangement.

But the current agreement concerns only in the beneficial side of that equation the one that that would enrich the Royals, not the one that would entail liabilities.

And what a pay day it was. As the Crown Estates holds the rights to the seabeds around Britain, the explosion in offshore wind, the biggest offshore windpower development in the world, is giving the royals a massive windfall, billions that before 2012 would have gone into the Treasury to help pay for schools, hospitals and defence of the realm.

The royals also benefit from what in effect are royal slush funds: the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The only reason they were not handed over to the state in 1760 is because they were basically worthless.

Lancaster was worth less than 20 at the time. Now they are hugely profitable estates, covering large swaths of the country. The Duchy of Cornwall even owns the Oval cricket ground extra cover for Charles to hit the taxpayer for six.

The royals are at pains to say these estates are ‘private’, yet in the past they have been classified as government departments. There is in fact still a minister for the Duchy of Lancaster. And if they are private, how come they are exempt from corporation tax, unlike any other private estate?

When it comes to royal money, secrecy is king.

The Royals are not cheap to run. Besides the ballooning Sovereign Grant, they demand expensive security, even for minor Royals whom most people have barely heard of, costing the taxpayer an estimated further 200 million a year.

Then there are the official properties – way in excess of what is needed to sustain a constitutional monarchy.

The State supports not just Buckingham Palace but also St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Frogmore Cottage and Hampton Court Mews, to name but a few. In total, the taxpayer pays for more than 100 Royal buildings.

NORMAN BAKER: In fairness to Charles, he appears keen to rein in royal expenditure, having ordered non-working Windsors, such as Andrew, to  live more prudently

Meanwhile, the public purse funds the whole sprawling network of 99 Lords Lieutenant (not to mention hundreds more deputies) who act as the King’s personal representatives.

In fairness to Charles, he appears keen to rein in royal expenditure, having ordered non-working Windsors, such as Andrew, to either live more prudently or earn some money of their own.

Yet this is no more than scratching the surface of his rather medieval arrangements in which the State should provide him with copious amounts of public money, free from taxation, with no questions asked.

Its a royal rip-off more in line with the practices of his ancestor Henry VIII than a modern democracy.

Norman Baker is a former minister and MP, and a serving Privy Counsellor. He is author of And What Do You Do? – What The Royal Family Doesnt Want You To Know published by Biteback, 10.99

Governments strategy for tackling climate change includes proposals for thousands more hectares of plants and trees to be grown to burn in power stations

By Daniel Capurro Environment Correspondent https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/net-zero-plan-land-biomass-crops-woodland-2257380

The Governments new climate change plan includes annual targets to plant more crops for burning to make electricity than woodland.
Green experts have warned that the focus on biomass risks distracting from proven technologies and increasing inequality in rural areas.

Planet of the Humans, the full movie by Michael Moore. Taken down by YouTube. The movie is about the lies and hypocrisy of ‘green energy’ and biomass.

The proposals for greater biomass use are part of a major new Government strategy launched last month in an attempt to get the UK on target to hit net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

As part of the plans, ministers are making a major bet on Beccs, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.

The technology, which has never been deployed on a major scale, claims to generate negative emissions.

The theory given is that the crops for burning usually fast-growing grass and trees would absorb carbon from the atmosphere while growing, which would then be stored underground in perpetuity once they have been burnt.

The technology also promises to provide electricity at times when less reliable forms of generation such as wind and solar are subdued.
Overall, the energy strategy makes a call to plant an additional 9,600 hectares of perennial energy crops and 8,900 hectares of woodland annually by 2030, increasing to 15,000 extra hectares of energy crops and 10,300 hectares of new woodland a year by 2035.

The Climate Change Committee has said that there is a place for Beccs in the UKs energy mix. However it has warned that the supply of sustainable feedstock is limited and that more of it needs to come from the UK rather than overseas.

Currently, biomass burning sites without carbon capture, such as Drax in North Yorkshire, import their wood from overseas.

Nevertheless, critics have questioned why ministers are placing so much emphasis on an expensive technology that is yet to be shown to work at the necessary scale.

Dr Lydia Collas, a policy analyst at Green Alliance, told i: The Government appears to be gambling heavily on bioenergy crops, even though these provide few environmental benefits beyond carbon. Planting new woodland, by contrast, is cheaper and better for nature and rural communities.

Critics of the biomass plan say finite subsidy money should be used to plant woodlands, which sequester carbon and also boost biodiversity, while energy efforts should focus on cheaper and proven technologies.

We shouldn’t be overcomplicating things. New technology will play an important role in tackling change, but we need to capitalise on the simple yet potentially transformative things already available to us, said Dr Collas.

Analysis by Green Alliance showed that, even if costs fell significantly, it was still cheaper to remove carbon via woodland planting.

As well as potentially distorting the UKs energy market, Green Alliance said that the emphasis on biomass crops risked channelling taxpayer money towards already wealthy farmers and away from poorer ones.

The agricultural land suitable for growing biomass crops tends to be of higher quality than that used for woodlands, which is often upland territory with poor soil, while much of the subsidy money would go to power generators.

The Government was approached for comment.

In moving away post-Brexit from the the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the UK government planned to move the agricultural-subsidy system for the UK farming industry towards one which linked subsidies to land protection, environmental protection, enhancing biodiversity and conservation measures – all under a new system named the “Environmental Land Management Scheme” (ELMS). The scheme will provide payments for farming that improves the environment and relieves climate change, such as hedge planting and river management initiatives and initiatives to increase biodiversity, restore landscapes, promote animal welfare and increase productivity through investment in new equipment and technology. The Act provides for a seven-year agricultural transition period (although that can be extended) from 2021 to 2027. The Agriculture Act, passed in November 2020, set a legislative framework for the new subsidy regime in England, including the list of ‘public goods’ for which subsidies may be paid. Shortly afterwards, Defra published an updated plan, The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024.

To transition to this new system, a Basic Payment Scheme was put in place with funding for Direct Payments for 2020 continued at the same level as 2019 to supplement the remaining EU funding that farmers will have received for development projects until 2023. During that time, BPS will be phased out and new financial assistance schemes will be phased in. The Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme will replace basic payments to farmers in England. In late September 2022 Defra rushed to quash news stories that its new Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) farming policy to replace the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was being halted.

ELMS: Where are we now?

Source: https://thelandapp.com/2023/01/26/elms-where-are-we-now/

The government has announced its long-awaited system of subsidies for Environmental Land Management (ELM). So, what’s new? We break down the progress made with ELMs to date, and where it’s heading in the future.

Having caused widespread concern by announcing a review into the viability of the ELMs scheme in late 2022, there was speculation that the subsidy would be axed entirely, with a return to a CAP-style system defined by area based payments. Nonetheless, it was confirmed that ELM would be implemented, split into three unique, but integrated levels; Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), Countryside Stewardship “plus”, and Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS). Despite this confirmation, however, it was unclear not only who could access the schemes and the specific details of their implementation, but exactly how much farmers and land managers would be paid for certain actions.

Today however, the government announced the payment rates for the three tiers. Therese Coffey, alongside this announcement, told land managers that “we are speeding up the rollout of our farming schemes so that everyone can be financially supported as they protect the planet while producing food more sustainably.” It is hoped that this will allow the sector to have a clearer picture for the future, and can finally start making plans for getting paid to create “public good” such as clean water, biodiversity uplift and woodland creation.

Applications for some of the payments will open in February, with others to follow in March, and some will be rolled out later in the year and next year. LNR is being trialled throughout 2023 with the hope that all eligible applicants can apply from the end of 2024. Payments under the English Woodland Creation Offer continue to be available, as well as Countryside Stewardship applications having recently opened. Land managers hoping to apply will have to keep a close watch for Defra’s announcements, given the staged rollout of availability. Nonetheless, the ELM announcements represent a crucial step forward for environmental-based payments in the land sector, bringing some much needed clarity and long-awaited peace of mind.

In such a critical time for the land sector, though, it is imperative that land managers and farmers are continued to be empowered to make sustainable decisions and access funding to produce public goods.

To avoid a piecemeal approach to restoring ecosystems through ELMS, interventions must be designed collaboratively and at the landscape level, to ensure maximum ecological and financial benefit is brought about by these schemes. Having the ability to assess and baseline your land, habitat assessment and co-design land management plans has never been more important.

REDISTRIBUTE NATURAL WEALTH NOW! How to claim your own land

Prior to the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002, a squatter could acquire the right to be registered as proprietor of a registered estate if they had been in adverse possession of the land for a minimum of 12 years. However, the doctrine of adverse possession did not fit easily with the concept of indefeasibility of title that underlies the system of land registration. Nor could it be justified by the uncertainties as to ownership which can arise where land is unregistered; the legal estate is vested in the registered proprietor and they are identified in the register.

More from Ken at Kerrbear Adventures

The Land Registration Act 2002 has created a new regime that applies only to registered land. This new regime is set out in Schedule 6 to the Act. It makes it more likely that a registered proprietor will be able to prevent an application for adverse possession of their land being completed. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the new regime; the remaining sections of this guide discuss it in more detail.

adverse possession of registered land for 12 years of itself will no longer affect the registered proprietor’s title

after 10 years’ adverse possession, the squatter will be entitled to apply to be registered as proprietor in place of the registered proprietor of the land

on such an application being made the registered proprietor (and certain other persons interested in the land) will be notified and given the opportunity to oppose the application

if the application is not opposed (by ‘opposed’ we mean that a counter notice is served; see Giving counter notice to the registrar in response to notice. Instead, or at the same time, the registered proprietor may object to the application on the ground that there has not been the necessary 10 years’ adverse possession; see Objecting to the squatter’s application for the implications of such an objection.), the squatter will be registered as proprietor in place of the registered proprietor of the land

if the application is opposed, it will be rejected unless either

it would be unconscionable because of an equity by estoppel for the registered proprietor to seek to dispossess the squatter and the squatter ought in the circumstances to be registered as proprietor
the squatter is for some other reason entitled to be registered as proprietor

the squatter has been in adverse possession of land adjacent to their own under the mistaken but reasonable belief that they are the owner of it, the exact line of the boundary with this adjacent land has not been determined and the estate to which the application relates was registered more than a year prior to the date of the application.

in the event that the application is rejected but the squatter remains in adverse possession for a further 2 years, they will then be able, subject to certain exceptions, to reapply to be registered as proprietor and this time will be so registered whether or not anyone opposes the application

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adverse-possession-of-registered-land/practice-guide-4-adverse-possession-of-registered-land

Thousands march across Dartmoor to demand right to wild camp

More than 3,000 people protest on estate of Alexander Darwall after his court victory ends right to wild camp in England

The Dartmoor march was one of the largest countryside access protests the UK has ever seen.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/21/thousands-march-across-dartmoor-to-demand-right-to-wild-camp

More than 3,000 people joined one of the UK’s largest ever countryside access protests on Saturday on the Dartmoor estate of a wealthy landowner who won a case ending the right to wild camp in England.

Groups of walkers, families, students and local people arrived by foot, shuttle bus and bike to the small Dartmoor village of Cornwood throughout the morning and then thronged for hours along moss- and ivy-draped lanes up on to the rugged, boulder-strewn moorland owned by the Conservative party donor and hedge fund manager Alexander Darwall.

Darwall, Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, sparked outrage earlier this month when he won a case in the high court overturning the right to freely camp on large parts of Dartmoor, arguing that the right had never existed. The area had been the only place in England where there was a right to wild camp without seeking permission.

“There has never been a time when it has been more essential for humans to be connected to nature – but we’re having our right of access removed,” said Laurie Huggett, 38, who travelled with her family to the protest from Cornwall. “We felt shock and horror when we heard about the ruling. We had to come today.”

Many were riled up rather than appeased by the announcement last week of a hastily negotiated permissive access deal between the moor’s leading landowners and Dartmoor National Park Authority, which allows people to camp in a smaller area of the park in exchange for a yet-to-be-decided management fee paid out of public funds. A representative for Darwall confirmed some of his land had been entered into the wild camping scheme.

“It sticks in my craw,” says Duncan Hutchinson, 71, who lives nearby with his wife. “We are not accepting favours from our masters. We are not their serfs. It isn’t the 19th century. Dartmoor is not a private gentlemen’s shooting estate.”

The prospect of the park authority having to pay landowners for access angered others. “Taxpayers are now having to pay for something that was free for all of us a week ago. That’s wrong. And these areas can be easily withdrawn,” said Steve Ward-Booth, 48, a local GP, who wild camps with his children. “It’s a short step to fencing off the land for pheasant shoots for the privileged minority and stopping walkers. Where does it end?”

The agreement has been denounced as a “stitch-up” by campaigners, with a diverse range of outdoor organisations from the Ramblers, British Mountaineering Council and British Canoeing opposing any deal that replaces public rights with permissive arrangements, which can be withdrawn by landowners at any time. Analysis by the Right to Roam Campaign, which organised the protest, shows more than 50,000 hectares (123,500 acres) have been lost to wild campers under the deal, amounting to an 18% reduction in the land available for walkers to pitch tents carried in backpacks.

One outdoor volunteer said she was taking a group of children training for the Ten Tors challenge to camp in a pub garden this weekend. “We don’t have permission [to camp] in January,” said Rebecca Trebilcock. “We are camping in a beer garden tonight. We’ve lost two weekends when we could have been wild camping as a result of the ruling. It is heartbreaking.”

The walk culminated in a theatrical ceremony to summon an ancient Dartmoor spirit called Old Crockern on the bleak expanse of Stall Moor, which forms part of the Darwalls’ estate. Hundreds of protesters cheered in the bright winter sunshine as the moor’s ghostly guardian, who, according to folklore, rode a skeleton horse and punished the avarice of a rich Dartmoor merchant, appeared on the brow of the hill.

Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, said it was one of the largest countryside access protests the UK had ever seen. “This is by far the biggest right-to-roam mobilisation since the campaign to open up the countryside more than two decades ago – and one of the largest since the protests and trespasses of the 1930s that led to the formation of national parks. It shows how deeply people care about access to this country’s most beautiful landscapes.”

About 400 working-class ramblers battled Duke of Devonshire gamekeepers to reach the Kinder Scout plateau in the Peak District in 1932. The prosecution and jailing of five of the trespassers led to a rally of close to 10,000 in nearby Winnats Pass calling for free access to the mountains. In 1999 the Ramblers association brought 2,500 people on to Chiltern hills in Oxfordshire to demand a right to roam.

Ashbrook, who is a vice-president of the Ramblers, said the court case may prove to be the catalyst for a new movement. “The strength of feeling on display is about far more than the right to wild camping on Dartmoor’s commons. The ruling has lit a fire in the public’s imagination, and people see this as a threat to their rights and freedoms, and realise the injustice of having access rights to only 8% of England,” she said.

Alexander Darwall has been contacted for comment on Saturday’s protests. Responding to the high court judgment earlier this month, Darwall and his wife, Diana, said: “We are grateful to the high court for its thoroughness in clarifying the matter. We now hope to engage with the Dartmoor National Park Authority, so that we can improve outcomes on the ground. Working together, we can improve conservation of the Dartmoor commons and improve the experience for those enjoying the commons legitimately.”

Farmers Alexander and Diana Darwall brought a successful legal challenge over wild camping.

Tom Pilgrim – Friday 13 January 2023 16:40

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dartmoor-high-court-alex-sobel-ramblers-labour-b2261746.html

Farmers Alexander and Diana Darwall brought a successful legal challenge over wild camping (Ben Birchall/PA)

A High Court ruling that people do not have a right to wild camp in Dartmoor National Park without landowners permission has been called a ‘huge step backward’, as disappointed campaigners vowed to ‘go to war’ and challenge the decision.

Farmers Alexander and Diana Darwall brought a successful legal challenge over wild camping, claiming some campers cause problems to livestock and the environment.

Mr and Mrs Darwall, who keep cattle on Stall Moor, which forms part of their more-than 3,450-acre estate in the southern part of Dartmoor, secured a finding from a judge that a 1985 law that regulates access to moorland does not provide a right to wild camp.

The Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), which defended the High Court claim, said it was really disappointed by Sir Julian Flauxs ruling and would be considering whether to appeal.

The Ramblers Association, a walking charity now known as the Ramblers, tweeted: This decision is a huge step backward for the right of everyone to access nature.

It said it supported the long-established precedent of wild camping on Dartmoor and said it would fight to defend our rights of access & overturn this result.

The charity later said it was concerned the legal case could be the thin end of the wedge for peoples rights to explore nature.

Access to nature helps everyone stay connected to the environment and passionate about protecting it for future generations, it added.

The Right to Roam campaign tweeted that the judges ruling was an absolute outrage and that it now goes to war.

It said it was launching a ferocious campaign to fight for our right to sleep under the stars and called for people to join a march on Mr Darwalls land later this month.

Emma Linford, an outdoor education professional with 20 years experience, and part of The Stars are for Everyone campaign, told the PA news agency that she felt rage about the rights of privilege and entitlement of how one person can remove such an important right for so many.

Ms Linford, who has led skills training on Dartmoor, added that Wild camping is not an occupation, it is transitory, it is recreation. Recreation that connects, inspires, develops rounded human beings.

The Dartmoor Preservation Association, an independent organisation interested in the moors ecology, said on Twitter that the judgment was a great let-down for all who love Dartmoor.

It added: This is just the latest in a historical assault on public rights of access to the countryside at a time when we desperately need more, not less time in nature.

Also on Twitter, MP Alex Sobel, Labours shadow minister for environment, said: Our National Parks should be open to all and access to Dartmoor is integral to that.

Labour will expand the right to roam as part of our programme for Government.

Our natural spaces are here for us all to share for biodiversity, wellbeing and equity.

Ruth Marvel, chief executive of The Duke of Edinburghs Award scheme, said: We are extremely disappointed by todays decision.

This generation of young people are grappling with the aftershocks of a devastating pandemic and a once-in-a-lifetime cost-of-living crisis, which are taking a harmful toll on their mental health.

Now is the time to protect and extend their right to explore the great outdoors and get off the beaten track, with all the vital mental and physical benefits that brings, not limit it further.

She said the scheme was liaising with the DNPA and hoped to ensure that young people who explore our countryside for their DofE wont lose out on the unique thrill of solitude, independence and adventure that wild camping brings.