Toxic waste on Duchy Estate land in Wigan.  King’s private estate tried to sell land with UK’s ‘worst illegal waste dump’ to council

https://archive.is/m3xZb#selection-1235.0-1587.96

KING Charles’s private estate tried to sell land that was contaminated with a large rotting illegal waste dump to a local authority, it has emerged. In January, a 25,000-ton site described as the UK’s “worst illegal waste dump” in Bickershaw, Wigan, was revealed to be largely on land owned by the Duchy of Lancaster, the King’s extensive private portfolio of properties and estates. Previously, the Duchy said it had offered to transfer the land to Wigan Council in July last year.

However, a Freedom of Information Request by Channel 4 News found that the Duchy tried to sell the site to the local authority at full market price. The Duchy previously claimed that it is, in effect, exempt from regulations and duties to clean the site on account of an ancient feudal legal framework dating back some 750 years.

Then in February, following revelations that the toxic illegal landfill was largely on the Duchy’s land, the estate followed up the offer to the council, offering to transfer the land for free. “We have discussed the matter with the Duchy Solicitor, who has confirmed the Duchy will transfer the property to the Council for nil value and with each party bearing their own costs in the hope that that will assist the Council in dealing with the property in conjunction with its own adjoining land,” the Duchy wrote.

In the revealed correspondence, emails from the Duchy’s solicitors, Farrer & Co, show, in addition to the transfer offer, that the Duchy attempted to sell the contaminated land at market value to the council. In July, the Duchy reportedly wrote: “… it may be possible to sell the land to you. Any sale would have to be at open market value and the Duchy of Lancaster’s valuers, and our costs would have to be paid as well.” Wigan Council told Channel 4 News on Monday that it “respectfully declined” the Duchy’s offer.

A Duchy of Lancaster spokesperson told Channel 4 News: “We continue to work with Wigan Council to try and find an effective resolution to the illegal waste site.” Last month, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said that the Duchy’s plan to hand contaminated land to the local council is “not an acceptable response”. The UK Government has since announced it will fund the clean-up of the Wigan site, although it has yet to begin…

Community Rejoices as Claim for Adverse Possession Successfully Upheld

Challenging Councils & Public Bodies
Leading Housing Solicitors

HJA In The News April 14, 2026

Gregory Horne, Solicitor in the Housing Law team at Hodge Jones & Allen, successfully assisted the defendant in the case of Elitestone v Revill, helping Mr. Revill to demonstrate factual possession of the land in dispute; whereby the original claim for possession was dismissed with the counterclaim for adverse possession allowed with declarations and costs.

Hodge Jones & Allen took on Mr Revill’s case after his previous legal representative was unable to secure him a legal aid certificate. Gregory then had to work with counsel, Timothy Baldwin, Barrister at Garden Court Chambers, to formulate a defence in less than 14 days’ time as a result of the switch in legal teams.

On taking instructions, Mr Revill explained that he was in occupation of a plot of land referred to as Unit 16 Holts Field in opposition to Elitestone Ltd, a real estate company who intended to develop the land.

Wales online: Inside Holtsfield, the thriving but hidden community that has emerged on a holiday site which became a wartime refuge

Holts Field is a small patch of land housing some twenty families who have lived there since the 1930s and some of whom had held a licence to occupy prior to Elitestone’s acquisition. Mr Revill explained that he had been in occupation of the land for 35 years, since 1991, and that he had been active in campaigns to defend the people who lived there, including himself, from eviction for the entire period of his occupation.

He directed Hodge Jones & Allen to a national campaign by the people of Holts Field which had resulted in a case which escalated to the House of Lords in 1997 from which a number of the occupiers of the field had won secure Rent Act tenancies. Mr Revill explained that his occupation began when he paid the person previously in occupation £6,000 for the right to the chalet. It later transpired that this was the wrong person to pay as they had never had permission form the licence holder to live in the chalet themselves.

Swansea council: Conservation area – Holt’s Field

Mr Revill was unfortunately the victim of a fire in March 2024 which destroyed his chalet on Holts Field, destroyed all the documentation which might have lent credibility to his claims, and caused Mr Revill such severe injury that he was medically declared dead and had no heartbeat for 15 minutes. He was eventually resuscitated and it was at that point that possession proceedings began.

Gregory assisted in preparing a defence which argued firstly that he was a licensee, having bought a licence when he took up occupation, and in the alternative that he was in adverse possession and had been since 1991 meaning that he was entitled to a declaration that the property was held on trust for him beneficially.

At a three day trial last week, Gregory and Timothy Baldwin were both able to successfully persuade the judge that despite the deficiencies in documentary evidence, there was sufficient credible evidence, primarily in the form of the live testimony evidence of those who were also involved in the struggle for the field in 1991, that Mr Revill had begun his occupation in the summer of 1991 and was therefore entitled to the declaration sought.

The Land Is Ours 1997 Action: 1997: action in the Gower, Holtsfield homepage

At that trial, HHJ Beard gave an oral judgement making findings of fact on the evidence that the Defendant had been in uninterrupted possession of Unit 16 from August 1991 and that breaks in possession in 2019 and as a result of the fire did not amount to abandonment and he had sought secure and improve the land. Therefore, the elements of demonstrating adverse possession were made out as he has factual possession of the land, had the necessary intention to possession the land and this was without the Claimants consent. Further as the possession had been at least 12 years prior to the 13 October 2003 before the Land Registration Act 2003 came into force he was entitled to the declaration and registration as proprietor. Thus, the claim for possession was dismissed and the counterclaim for adverse possession allowed with declarations and costs.

The case demonstrated the strength of the community and showed solidarity in action amongst those who have lived and fought for their right to remain for all those years.

As a result of this ruling, Mr Revill has already begun construction work on a new chalet on the site and intends to take up occupation and rejoin the community there at the earliest opportunity. Gregory and Mr Baldwin also achieved an order for costs subject to detailed assessment as per legal aid guidance.

Commenting on the successful result, Gregory stated: “I was very pleased to be able to help Mr Revill. It is inspiring to see a community come together to make right such a long running dispute and I am hopeful that this judgement will bring to a close the 35 plus years of conflict between Elitestone and the residents of Holts Field.”

 

Read more elsewhere here on The Land Is Ours website: Holtsfield – The Story so Far

Royal Mint, National Debt: The Shocking Truth About The Royal Finances
by Norman Baker, Biteback, £22
Ref: https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/royal-mint-national-debt

In his irreverent and uncompromising bestseller … And What Do You Do?, former Minister of State and Privy Counsellor Norman Baker laid bare what the British royal family didn’t want us to know, namely its extravagant use of public money and general bad behaviour.

This sensational sequel goes even deeper in its analysis of royal finances, examining where the money comes from, how it is used and what has changed with the arrival of a new king.

Amongst many other things, it reveals how a family that was effectively bankrupt in 1760 is now one of the richest in the country; how they lobby governments and the media to maximise their profits from the public purse; and how they take advantage of a uniquely beneficial tax and legislative regime.

Packed with details on the acceptance of dodgy donations; the appropriation of official gifts for personal use; and the exploitation of public bodies including the NHS, churches and charities, who are charged punitive rates for the use of Duchy-controlled land, this eye-opening exposé also includes a chapter on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and his money-making endeavours, including his friendships with convicted fraudsters, paedophiles and spies.

Pulling no punches, this is the book the royal family really don’t want you to read.
*****************************************
 

YouTube interview with Norman Baker about his new book here: King Charles and Prince William’s Secret Billions: Norman Baker on Royal Finances
****************************************
 

Morning Star Book Review
Exposure of the Royal rip-off
23 December 2025
JAMIE BRITTON reaches for the sick bucket as he is forced to engorge detail after detail of the Royal Family’s wealth

Ref: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/exposure-royal-rip

Royal Mint, National Debt: The Shocking Truth About The Royal Finances
Norman Baker, Biteback, £22

IF ever a book should come with a public health warning this is it! Either that or the reader should prepare to have a sick bucket nearby and a large quantity of Rennies to be consumed after they have finished it.

Baker follows up to his forensic study of the royal finances, And What Do You Do?, by going even deeper into where the money comes from, how it is used, and how the royals lobby governments and the media for maximum profit. It is all here in sordid detail. How the NHS and charities pay them to use Duchy-controlled land, and how they increase their profits by mixing with crooks and other dubious individuals.

Yes, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Sarah Ferguson are here. By the time you have finished Chapter 8, Andrew’s Unsavoury Circle, you might find a Rennie will come in handy to quell the rising heartburn and flux you will undoubtably feel.

What I found most interesting in this book was the chapter on the Sovereign Wealth Fund. It shows clearly how monarchs go about reducing parliamentary and public scrutiny of their financial dealings. In 2025 the royal settlement for the year ahead was a 53 per cent increase in funding for the royals. This bitter pill was sugared by the decision to axe the royal train. “King cuts back on bills” screamed the headlines! In fact, as Baker points out this was not a saving at all as the royals were to benefit from two new “carbon-busting” helicopters that vary in price between £150,000 and £500,000. As Baker states: “Expect the royals to plump for something at the top end as they are not paying.”

In Chapter 9, Upstairs, Downstairs, Baker lists the ludicrous lifestyle hidden from the public. The fact that Queen Elizabeth II needed ten servants to serve her afternoon tea; the sandwiches having to be cut in certain ways so that they had no corners on them; that King Charles must have several eggs boiled for his breakfast so that he can have the perfect one to suit his preference at the time; the unspeakable Andrew calling a maid up four flights of stairs to open his curtains. Curtains he was sitting right next to.

But wait! I hear you ask. Isn’t William going to slim down the monarchy? All this is made clear in Chapter 3, Mercenary Duchies, and Chapter 12, A New Beginning, where Baker shows that things have got worse “in terms of the vast sums of public money now being directed to this, one of the richest families in the country.”

So the next time the media deems fit to present a future king, with family, in a field of daffodils, or the king raising a glass of stout towards us: remember, they are not smiling. They are laughing at us. Laughing all the way to the bank.

Pippa Middleton ready for a rumble with The Ramblers’ Association after shutting footpath at her £15million mansion

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15706723/Pippa-Middleton-Ramblers-Association-shutting-footpath-15million-mansion.html

When Pippa Middleton and James Matthews paid £15 million for a 32-room red-brick Georgian mansion set in 145 acres of Berkshire countryside, they surely thought they had found the perfect sanctuary to raise their young family in privacy.

But the Princess of Wales’s younger sister and her hedge-fund tycoon husband now find themselves in a battle with furious locals, after they barred dog walkers and ramblers from going through their grounds.

The couple will now have to persuade a government-appointed planning inspector next month that they are within their rights to withdraw long-standing access to the track.

Grade I-listed Barton Court, which sits on the River Kennet near the village of Kintbury, was previously owned by the late retail tycoon Sir Terence Conran, who allowed locals to use Mill Lane, which winds through the estate.

But when the couple arrived in 2022 with their three children – Arthur, seven, Grace, five, and Rose, three – they wasted little time in closing off the lane with an electric gate.

Signs warning ‘Private: No Public Access’ and ‘No Trespassing’ appeared around the perimeter.

Thirty-five residents, backed by The Ramblers Association, applied to West Berkshire Council to have Mill Lane declared a public right of way.

The council sided with the villagers, but Mr Matthews, through his land agent, then objected.

Do YOU think that access to this footpath should be made public?

No, it’s on private property
Yes, people have used this lane for a long time

Next month a planning inspector will hear representations from both sides before making a legally binding ruling.

Eugene Futcher, chairman of West Berkshire Ramblers, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The public have had  for a very long time – certainly before the 1960s.’

‘Taking it away will be inconvenient, especially when walking is so important. It will force people on to the main road, which is very dangerous.

‘There is no footpath or verge.

‘The paths were never closed under Conran – he actively encouraged people to use them.’

Rob Brown, 68, a Kintbury resident since 1985, said: 1 don’t think they give a damn about what anyone in the village thinks.

‘They’re not very popular in the area. They think they’re better than everyone else. They re not even the proper Royal Family

‘Closing the path is a nuisance. Conran was better for the area.’

Peter Clegg, 68, said: I don’t know who they think they are. They think they can decide who can walk where and when.

‘It’s not on. It’s not like people are trampling on arable fields. People have been walking there for a long time. It shows a lack of respect.’

A resident of 20 years added: ‘I understand their need for privacy, but you can’t move into a village and demand that people change their ways.’

The footpath dispute is not the only source of friction since the couple arrived in Kintbury.

Plans to renovate the mansion stalled after archaeologists warned that work could disturb prehistoric remains on the site.

And last year a party to mark Mr Matthews’ 50th birthday drew complaints over late-night music.

On Thursday April 1st, protesters in London occupied the exclusive Mayfair antiquarian bookshop belonging to the absentee landlord at the centre of the rent dispute hitting hill farmers in the Knockmealdowns in Waterford, Eire. A proposed 900% increase in rent by Peregrine Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire
will drive these traditional farmers off the land their families have tended to for centuries.

   

Sheep farmers 900% rent increase issue raised in Dáil
The Munster Express, 28th Mar 2026

Ref: https://www.munster-express.ie/sheep-farmers-900-rent-increase-issue-raised-in-dil/

The issue of a proposed 900% rent increase for sheep farmers leasing land in the Knockmealdown Mountains was raised in the Dáil last week.
A group of farmers, who lease the almost 8,000 acres of land on the mountains from Lismore Estate, which manages Lismore Castle on behalf of the Duke of Devonshire and his son the Earl of Burlington, recently spoke out after they were told that the rent they pay will increase up to €50 per hectare in 2029.

The farmers on the commonage told media that they had previously been paying €5 per hectare for over 20 years. The figure increased to €15 in 2024, and €17.50 in 2025. They were recently told by Lismore Estate that it will now increase every year up to 2029.
One sheep farmer, Thomas Fitzgerald said there are concerns they will be ‘hunted’ off the land by the increase, and he has refused to pay the increased rent until it can be negotiated. In response, Lismore Estate has refused to provide him with a letter of evidence to prove he is leasing the land.
Sinn Féin TD Conor D. McGuinness raised the issue to the Minister for Agriculture, Martin Heydon in the Dáil last week.
“I want to raise the issue of hill farmers on the Knockmealdown Mountains in County Waterford,” Deputy McGuinness said. “They are currently in dispute with a landlord over exorbitant rent increases. I know the Minister will not intervene but the Department has effectively taken a side in an ongoing dispute here in holding these farmers over a barrel because no farm payments are being issued while the dispute goes on because of the requirement to provide a commonage-evidence letter.
“This is effectively the State siding with the landlord. These farmers rely on that farm payment. They farm other lands as well as the ones that are in dispute. This has echoes of darker times in our history when absentee landlords pushed farmers of the land. The Department needs to take a realistic look at this,” he added.
In response, Minister Heydon said: “I am aware of the particular case in Waterford that Deputy McGuinness has raised. It is a bit beyond the scope of this question. The issue of single farm payments comes down to who is the active farmer. That is the position on that question. I hope a resolution can be found in the near future”.
Deputy McGuinness said that the response received by the Minister was “wholly inadequate” and confirms that the Government is “taking a hands off approach.”
He added: “These farmers are facing rent increases of up to 900 percent. At the same time, they are being denied access to their farm payments because they cannot produce a commonage evidence letter while the dispute is ongoing. That leaves them trapped, under pressure, and with their livelihoods at risk”.
“This has echoes of darker times when absentee landlords pushed Irish farmers off the land. That is a comparison that should deeply concern this Government.
“The Minister’s response boiled down to a narrow technical definition of ‘active farmer’ and a hope that the issue resolves itself. That is not good enough. These are real families who rely on those payments to survive and to continue farming.
“This is about the future of hill farming and rural communities in places like the Knockmealdowns. Once this way of life is lost, it cannot simply be restored.
“The Minister must now intervene. He must ensure that no farmer loses their payments because of documentation issues arising from an ongoing dispute, and he must engage to support a fair and sustainable outcome for those farming these lands,” Deputy McGuinness concluded.
A spokesperson for Lismore Estate provided the following statement: “A rent review was conducted in 2023 which informed the proposed rents for tenants of the Knockmealdown Mountains on the Lismore Estate, up to and including 2029”.
“This proposal was endorsed by an independent agricultural consultant, and we are working with tenants on its gradual phased implementation,” the spokesperson for Lismore Estate added.

Duchy of Cornwall tenants ‘enormously stressed’ over Devon estate sell-off
The Herald, Sat 28th March 2026

Ref: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/25976758.duchy-cornwall-tenants-enormously-stressed-devon-estate-sell-off/

Tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall have been left “enormously stressed” following plans to sell off land on an estate in Devon.

The Bradninch estate, near Cullompton, has been part of the duchy for centuries and is owned by the eldest son of the monarch.

As heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales inherited the estate – a portfolio of land, property and investments valued at more than £1 billion – when his father became King.

The duchy provides William, who is the 25th Duke of Cornwall, with a private income of nearly £23 million a year.

The money is used to fund the charitable, private and official lives of William, the Princess of Wales and their children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.

The duchy said the sales were part of an ongoing review into where it can make the “most social and environmental impact across our existing portfolio” and tenants were being given the chance to buy their farms.

In a letter to The Times newspaper, local resident John Palmer said: “This is unexpected and shocking news, and is enormously stressful for tenants and employees of the duchy estate.

“It is said that the tenants will have first option of buying their farms, some of which have been in the same family for generations.

“It will be difficult or impossible for some duchy tenants to raise the necessary capital in these financially challenging times for British farmers.”

George Dunn, chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association (TFA), said: “The Tenant Farmers Association is aware of conversations currently live on the duchy’s Bradninch estate involving the duchy informing its tenants that it is selling that bit of its portfolio and giving the tenants first refusal before doing so.

“Obviously, the association is disappointed that the duchy is selling, but it is part of their current plans for rationalisation and, in the world of the second best, the TFA is pleased, at least, to see that sitting tenants are to be given first refusal on purchasing.

“The association has no reports of tenants receiving notices to quit.

“So, whilst unable to confirm or deny those reports, it might be occurring on farm business tenancy agreements where notice is available to the duchy so that it can sell with vacant possession if the sitting tenant is not interested in a purchase.

“Obviously, where the tenant is unable or unwilling to purchase the freehold, there will be a major upheaval in respect of their farm businesses given their expectation to have been tenants on those farms into the long term in light of the long-term nature of Duchy of Cornwall tenancies.”

Will Bax, chief executive of the Duchy of Cornwall, said: “Over the past year, we have been reviewing where we can make the most social and environmental impact across our existing portfolio.

“We will be reinvesting significantly in areas where there is the greatest need and potential.

“To drive this social and environmental impact means making some very tough decisions.

“These decisions are made carefully and with a long-term view.

“With any sale, our priority is to manage the process with compassion and to give our tenants as much time and support as possible.

“Many of our farm tenants are telling us that they see this is an exciting opportunity for their families to buy their own properties for the first time.”

Guardian: finding out who owns land will become simpler under plans to make the best use of green spaces and hit net zero targets

Fiona Harvey Environment editor Wed 18 Mar 2026

Finding out who owns land in England is to become much simpler because a paywall will be lifted from large parts of the Land Registry, the government is to announce.

A small number of landowners control the majority of land but finding out who owns what is difficult to piece together, even for government departments, owing to the way the Land Registry operates. Freeing up access will make it easier to determine ownership of key areas, such as river catchments, grouse moors and peatland.

The change comes as part of a major reform to the way England’s land is managed. The government’s long-awaited land use framework – to be unveiled by Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, on Wednesday afternoon – marks the first time that government has attempted to assess how best to use farmland, nature reserves and areas of degraded land to help balance competing needs for land for food production, housing, energy and industry.

For the first time, ministers will set out how much land is needed to meet the UK’s net zero target through growing forests and restoring peatland as “carbon sinks” and through energy generation from solar and wind-farms. Only about 1% of land will be needed for renewable energy generation, according to the government’s new estimate, and much of the land required will still be used for food production, for instance through livestock grazing around wind-farms and under solar panels.

New mapping will also make it easier to assess how the restoration of peatlands in upland areas could reduce flooding from rivers, which is expected to worsen as the climate crisis deepens.

Reynolds said: “It is more important than ever that we make the right decisions about our finite land, especially in the face of the dual threat of the climate and nature crises. The land use framework will hardwire climate resilience and nature-based solutions into our decision-making to ensure that we have safe homes for the future.”

Guy Shrubsole, author of Who Owns England?, said: “The bold promise to open up the Land Registry would finally bring to an end a thousand years of secrecy shrouding who owns England, and enable greater scrutiny of what goes on behind the barbed-wire fences that criss-cross the countryside. Given that 1% of the population own half of England, it’s only reasonable that the largest landowners should be held most responsible for restoring nature to these ‘dewilded’ isles. The new land use framework is an ambitious step towards making England a greener, fairer and more pleasant land.”

However, the government will stop well short of directing how land must be used in any area. There will be no attempts to force landowners to give up control and no national scheme to mandate the conversion of land to carbon sinks. The framework will be used to “steer” house-builders away from constructing homes on flood-plains, after concerns about the number of new-build homes at risk from flooding as the climate crisis worsens.

The aim that everyone should be within 15 minutes of a green space or water will also become easier to meet within the new framework, as councils will be given tools to identify where green space is lacking so that they can invest accordingly. About one in five people in England lack such access at present, but this is worst among the most deprived communities.

Farmers have been concerned that food production would be downgraded in favour of turning land to nature protection or use as carbon sinks, for instance through growing forests. But campaigners said there need not be a contradiction between nature protection and farming.

“Wildlife in the UK is in crisis so nature must be given space to recover,” said Brendan Costelloe, policy director at the Soil Association. “But for the land that will remain farmland, it’s vital the government recognises that food production does not have to stop to create space for nature. We can and must make sure the land that’s producing food is doing so in a nature-friendly way.”

The Soil Association wants more support for farmers to grow peas and beans, which fix nitrogen in the soil naturally, and more trees to be planted for forage, human food and wood, as well as a shift away from growing crops that require a high degree of soil disturbance on slopes and flood-plains.

After the scandal of Andrew, the royals owe us transparency about their finances

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/king-charles-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-royal-family-crisis-duty-empathy-b2924890.html

https://archive.is/hfQ7w

They have the use of 50 residences on estates totalling 250,000 acres and a life of wealth and privilege paid for by the public purse, yet much of their financial lives are shrouded in secrecy. The time has come to open up the books, writes Chris Blackhurst

Saturday 21 February 2026 06:00 GMT

 

Life will never be the same again for Britain�s royal family. The Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor scandal has rocked the institution to the core. Rather like the banking crisis of 2008, when the authorities were desperate to avoid contagion dragging down other banks, they are keen to prevent the spread.

For a body that likes to remain discreet and private, this is a transforming, unnerving prospect. Andrew�s troubles have shone an unwelcome light on not only his, but all of their living and financial arrangements. It�s not that the other royals have anything particular to hide � we don�t know � but rather that so much has hitherto been off limits. To release all the detail, to suddenly go from nothing to everything, as they might well be required to, is bound to provoke shock and anger.

This is a family, or �firm�, that likes to control how it�s presented. While this was once justified on the grounds that to let the light in somehow destroys the mystique, those days have well and truly passed. It is hard to see how those guard rails can be preserved when the deference has diminished, and MPs and media are champing at the bit. Even David Dimbleby (David Dimbleby!) has dared to front a documentary that asks, pointedly: What�s the Monarchy for?

The National Audit Office is currently investigating Andrew�s use of his former home at Royal Lodge, and its report will be sent to the Commons public accounts committee. Its findings will be published and there will be public hearings.

That is just for starters. The probe is not likely to stop there. This is an issue that is not going to vanish. A public struggling with an ever-rising cost-of-living burden, tax increases and a chronic housing shortage will demand answers, not just about Andrew, but about the wider family. They will not be receptive to obfuscation. The genie has been released from the bottle. There can be no going back.

A detailed report last year from the anti-monarchy group Republic put the bill for the royal family�s upkeep at more than �500m annually. A substantial portion is derived from the sovereign grant. It comprises profits from the crown estate�s �15bn property portfolio, which covers a large area of London�s St James�s and locations dotted around Britain. Now, people want to know how those revenues are arrived at. Are rents properly and fairly calculated? Do some tenants enjoy more favourable terms than others?

These are questions, and there are many, many others, that will require answers. Transparency is the order of the day. Tellingly, given Republic’s ideological antecedents, their study was not challenged by the royal household or its supporters. It prompted Norman Baker, the former Lib Dem MP, to ask in a new book, Royal Mint, National Debt ‘ The Shocking Truth About the Royal Family’s Finances, to highlight that the bill for maintaining the UK royal family ‘is undoubtedly much higher than that of any other European monarchy’.

He contrasts them with other royal families. In the Netherlands, the heir to the Dutch throne, Princess Catharina-Amalia, announced when she was 18 that she would renounce her �300,000 annual income while she was a student and forfeit �1.6m in expenses; in Sweden, the king removed royal titles from five of his grandchildren; in Denmark, the queen took them away from four of her grandchildren, saying it was ‘for their own good’, while in Copenhagen, Crown Prince Frederik and his wife, Princess Mary, ferry their young children to state school by cargo bike. Writes Baker: ‘You can never imagine this normality, that informality, with the British royal family.’

Here, our equivalents have the use of 50 residences, estates totalling 250,000 acres – among them the well known like Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Clarence House, St James’s Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham, Holyrood, Gatcombe Park, Highgrove, Royal Lodge, Bagshot Park and Thatched House Lodge, but also other Palladian houses and farms.

Included in the royal collection, too, are the ‘grace-and-favour’ apartments for servants and former staff and anyone else the King wants to put up. At the last public estimate, there were 272 of those alone. But that figure is cautionary. Because we simply do not know.

Taking the royal family forward is Prince William. PR-savvy and closely in tune with the zeitgeist, William and his wife, Catherine, are not afraid to use the media when it suits them to publicly voice their concerns and share personal information. But, thanks to Andrew, they, too, are in a bind. While William has indicated his desire for a slimmed-down monarchy, presumably akin to those Scandi models, he runs the risk of splitting his own family, of casting some relations into the wilderness, reducing them to commoners.

Ejection brings with it the threat of a royal turning rogue. William and Catherine have endured that with Harry and Meghan; this could spark a repeat � or repeats � and heap even more damage on the institution.

Prior to the latest escalation of the Andrew scandal, William kept his tax affairs secret, unlike the King. When the King was heir to the throne, his office outlined the figure that Charles had voluntarily paid in tax. But for the last two years, William has refused to reveal his own figure. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which are now his personal property, will not say what William pays in tax on the surplus profits he receives from the sprawling estates spread across many English counties.

While the latest Duchy of Cornwall accounts showed the estate made a profit of £22.9m in its last financial year, William cannot be made to disclose how much tax he pays – unlike other bodies, the royal household is not subject to the same Freedom of Information Act regulations. All his private secretary has said is that ‘the Prince of Wales pays the highest rate of income tax’. But we do not know.

Similarly, the crown estate is keen to stress that William and Kate are paying ‘market rent’ on Forest Lodge, their new ‘forever’ home. Independent valuers from Hamptons and Savills estate agents were appointed to value the property, and the couple received independent legal and property advice, as did the crown estate.

These bland explanations may satisfy some, but there will be vocal critics for whom they will not suffice. Andrew’s troubles have ensured there are more of them than ever before, and this time, their concerns cannot simply be dismissed.

A period of painful disclosure lies ahead.

Nice to see the new edition of The Land magazine but nowt about a chilling test case in Bristol, which other councils are hoping to run out across the country…

The City Council’s Exclusion Order is aimed at The Downs, land owned by Bristol’s archaic Edward Colston slave trading society, the Merchant Venturers. They are now mostly corporate lawyers and are also using their legal expertise to charge all regular sports activities on The Downs, such as frisbee groups, £2,600 for the use of the this 400 acre open space. It seems a silent cry has gone out from the Merchants, echoed at City Hall, for all Bristol’s public land to be monetised.

But it’s not just the housing crisis which led to over 150 vehicles staying on The Downs last year. The reason was that, since Covid, the council have been pursuing a systematic programme of traveller evictions from all the city’s biggest traveller sites on unused land, forcing hundreds out from self-managed sites onto the streets.

Bristol’s Merchant Venturers documentary HTV West Eye View (1995) Cabot Colston Mafia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVAq1YRK0RI

We are the ones to protect the Downs say Merchant Venturers

The Society of Merchant Venturers have defended the status quo, pointing out that most of it is their land, and is only open to the public because of the 1861 Act.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/ones-protect-downs-say-merchant-9628982

Personal trainers could be charged £2,600 to use the Downs

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/personal-trainers-could-charged-2600-10634391

Social Cleansing by stealth with The Downs as ‘killing zone’

About 300 cara/vans on large off-road sites around the city (Gasworks, Lockleaze; Tramways in Brislington etc.) have been evicted over the last three years, leaving hundreds of travellers kerb-side. Those trying to ride out the housing crisis were thus ejected from traditional secure sites, by a council charged to house all its citizens, onto the streets.

Forced out of secure, self-managed sites, arson attacks and graffiti death-threats have now become almost a weekly occurrence at Bristol City Council’s hands.

These exact same sites are now being ‘reopened’ by Bristol City Council as steel-gated compounds or ‘Meanwhile Sites’. The sites each have one water standpipe and drain-hole and travellers are expected to pay £1,700 a year in rent to the council plus from April £2,000 Band A council tax too to live on a council CCTV surveilled, ID spot checked site, which van dwellers used to happily self-manage, and live on for free.

Much of the news coverage ignores the Green ‘Human Rights City’ Council’s blatant act of ‘social cleansing’ because the 500 or so who are being forced out of the city by the council flytipping enforcement team, have no money, and no legal representation.

The Spectator: A day with Bristol’s van dwellers

https://archive.is/PNV6h

Trial date set as Downs ‘van dwellers’ saga nears an end

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/trial-date-set-downs-van-10797139

About 45 vehicles remained parked on roads surrounding the park in north Bristol (down from 150 early in 2025)

Bristol City Council is set for a court showdown as it moves to permanently ban people living in vehicles from the roads around the Downs.

In November, the council said it would seek to move people on from the Downs after designating the group of vehicles there as a ‘high impact’ site, due to what the council said was evidence of people using the area as a toilet.

Nonetheless, about 45 vehicles remain parked on roads along the outside of the green space in leafy north Bristol. At its peak, the Downs ‘encampment’ consisted of about 150 vehicles.

Now, a trial date has been set where the council will apply to have vehicles permanently barred from the area.

At the trial, on April 16, the council will apply for a possession order for the roads, allowing them to evict people living in vehicles there, and then an injunction to prevent them from returning have the vehicles still occupying roads along the perimeter of the Downs.

The court hearing will allow people on both sides of the debate to have their say; the council has until February 26 to publish a map detailing the proposed new exclusion zone, along with details of how people can take part in the court case.

At a brief hearing outlining next steps in the long-running saga at Bristol Civil Justice Court on Thursday (February 5), the court heard from both critics and supporters of people living in vehicles.

Alan Jenkinson, appearing on behalf of Protect The Downs – a group of locals who have waged a long campaign against the so-called van dwellers – said he wanted the scope of the proposed injunction to be extended to include other roads in the area.

“We support the council’s application,” he said. “I would implore the court to extend the broad nature of the injunction to other roads.

“We know from our experience and we’ve got substantial evidence to prove the danger to the public of allowing inhabitations on the roads.

“(The vehicles pose a) real risk and threat to the community in the area.”

Although the council has repeatedly promised to engage with the people still living in vehicles in the area to better understand their circumstances, there is limited evidence to suggest they have done so.

Gerard Winstanley, from the Bristol Housing Action Movement group, said more needed to be done to make sure people living in vehicles in the area had their say on their future.

“We’ve had virtually no representation whatsoever from the people who are targeted by this exclusion order,” he said.

“There are roughly 45 vehicles in the area. As part of our submission, what I’d just ask is that there’s more deliberate publicity given to the times and dates that these orders are being sought so that people can at least find out what the council intends to do and when.”

Mr Winstanley said BHAM would seek to be included as a party acting against the council in April’s trial.

The council will also apply to extend a separate injunction which currently bars people from parking on the grass itself. That injunction is due to expire on July 25.

Robin Denford, appearing on behalf of the council, said:“The injunction that has been granted already has worked extremely well,” citing the example of one trespasser who had been dealt with without any issues in January.

The Downs encampment represents a small percentage of the total number of vehicles being used as homes around Bristol, about 600 according to the council’s last estimate.

April’s trial is scheduled to last two days.

MPs to investigate crown estate after questions over Andrew mansion lease

Committee will examine value for money to taxpayers of leases of properties to members of royal family

by Caroline Davies, The Guardian
2/12/2025
Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/02/crown-estate-inquiry-andrew-mansion-lease

The public accounts committee is to launch an inquiry into the crown estate and its leases on properties to members of the royal family after questions over the lease of Royal Lodge to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Publishing responses from the crown estate and the Treasury to detailed questions over the lease arrangements, the committee’s chair, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, said: “Having reflected on what we have received, the information provided clearly forms the basis for an inquiry.” He said this would take place in the new year.

In a report for the committee, the crown estate confirmed that Mountbatten-Windsor was unlikely to receive any compensation for giving up his 75-year Royal Lodge lease early because of repairs that will have to be carried out on the 30-room mansion in Windsor Great Park. In 2003 he paid a £1m premium plus £7.5m upfront for refurbishment and agreed to pay a “peppercorn rent (if demanded)”.

The crown estate also revealed details of Forest Lodge, the new home of the Prince and Princess of Wales. It said William and Catherine, who moved into the property during the October half-term, held a 20-year non-assignable lease on the property and were paying “open market rent”, but gave no further details. “Negotiations were conducted on an arm’s length basis to ensure appropriate market terms were agreed,” the crown estate said.

It also provided information on other homes including the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh’s Bagshot Park and Thatched House Lodge in London’s Richmond Park. The inquiry will examine the value for money to taxpayers.

The committee will consider what witnesses to call to give evidence once it has considered all the written submissions. In theory it could summon Mountbatten-Windsor to appear. But there is no precedent in modern times for a member of the royal family giving evidence in person to a parliamentary committee, and the committee does not have the power to force him to attend.

In its briefing to the committee, the crown estate – an independent commercial business and public corporation – said: “Our initial assessment is that while the extent of the end-of-tenancy dilapidations and repairs required are not out of keeping with a tenancy of this duration, they will mean in all likelihood that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor will not be owed any compensation for early surrender of the lease … once dilapidations are taken into account.”

Mountbatten-Windsor gave the minimum 12 months’ notice that he would surrender the lease on 30 October. If no end-of-tenancy repairs had been required, he would have been entitled to £488,342.21 for ending his tenancy on 30 October 2026.

The crown estate said that in determining the Royal Lodge lease, relevant factors considered were the property’s location within Windsor Great Park, its state of repair and the security requirements concerning the Royal Chapel, which lies within the grounds of the property and was regularly used by the royal family at the time.

Mountbatten-Windsor took out the lease on Royal Lodge and its eight cottages in 2003 after the death of the queen mother, who had lived there, and the property needed significant refurbishment.

The terms of the lease were independently reviewed and confirmed as “fair, reasonable and in line with market practice”, the crown estate said. It said a “peppercorn rent (if demanded) by way of ongoing rent is an approach consistent with market practice for long-leasehold residential properties where significant capital investment is made and/or a premium is paid in lieu of a market rent”.

Mountbatten-Windsor will move into a private property on the king’s estate at Sandringham in the new year.