Duchy of Lancaster’s illegal waste dump..

[CurlewKate]

https://www.channel4.com/news/uks-worst-illegal-waste-dump-is-on-site-belonging-to-private-estate-of-king-but not our fault, Guv.

All of this costs money. Money that comes from taxes. Taxes that the King and his son ( and a fair few of their Aristo mates) choose to pay or not. Hes not personallhy expected to go round with a shovel and clear the toxic waste. He is being expected to contribute to the cost of the cleanup. He has 500 staff. You would have thought a few of them would be able to administer his property portfolio.

Sorry I thought it was February 2025 but good to see it's scheduled.

Oh yes we know the drill .

Charles and William just pocket the money but are not responsible for anything , not required to answer questions .

But the duchy rip off rumbles on and the illegal waste dump that Charles owns is just today’s scandal .
But the reporting won’t stop.

And the problem the Windsors have is that lickspittles and sycophants are thin on the ground these days - apart from some benighted corners of this website of course .

In France (a republic, of course) “ownerless property” becomes the property of the local municipal authority (communes), but they have the right to renounce it if it will be onerous. It then passes up to the next tier of local government, (départements), but they too have the right to renounce their rights. It then gets passed to the regional environmental agency, or to the State. So if this situation arose in France, exactly the same thing would happen: it would become an issue for central government because the lower tiers would pass it on.

But neither the Duchy nor C3 have renounced the initial taking possession of the land.

I think we had a debate a while back on the BV provisions relating to the Duchies and the income generated.

It's pretty poor behaviour to grab valuable property over and over to one's own benefit then attempt to weasel out of a problematic situation associated with such a grab.

When property escheats to the Crown, it may still be subject to existing charges or encumbrances. However, the Crown is not required to inherit liabilities, such as environmental damage, on the property.

How convenient!

This law, of course, only applies to the Crown/Duchy. If you inherit a piece of land, you are liable for environmental damage. But not the Duchy. Funny... I thought Charles was into the environment, silly me.

Why can’t these ancient laws be removed from the statute book ?

They can be and will be

If the Windsors had an ounce of sense
( compassion or duty is clearly asking too much) they’d offer to roll the duchies into the crown estate . That might buy them a few more generations with the shiny hat .

Best case scenario the Ducy of Lancaster clean up the land and build social housing on it.

Once again a thread about the Duchies where most posts show a complete lack of understanding of the legal framework. The King may receive the income but he doesn't get much of a voice in the day-to-day running of the Duchy. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a member of the Cabinet; the role is currently held by The Rt Hon Darren Jones MP (appointed 5 September 2025). He heads up the Duchy Council who adminsters the estate. The King may attend a few meetings annually but was probably completely unaware of this dump which is only 30% owned by the Duchy.

@simpsonthecat Anyone can refuse an inheritance if they don't want to take on the liabilities attached to it.

I do think it is appalling that landowners are solely responsible for the cost of removing illegal waste dumped on their land. It costs some landowners thousands of pounds a year. We need better ways to deal with waste to prevent it happening in the first place and stronger penalties to discourage the criminals that do this. The EA is a useless organisation.

Anyone can refuse an inheritance if they don't want to take on the liabilities attached to it.

Of course they can. But what if the dumping takes place after they have taken ownership of the land. They are liable. Unlike the Duchy because of escheats law

Why can’t these ancient laws be removed from the statute book ?

We are a constitutional monarchy. If the government wishes them to be removed, it should put them to parliament and debate them.

What would you wish to have in their place? As I pointed out upthread, bona vacantia applies throughout the UK; for most of England and Wales it is administered by the Treasury Solicitor as part of the government's legal department. When assets are realised the balance ultimately end up with the Treasury.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/bona-vacantia

The Duchies are managed separately.

Bollocks to the King not knowing. People reported the criminal dumping over a long period of time and that will have filtered back to his office. If he doesn’t get briefed on these things that’s his problem, not the poor people who have to live next to his land. The Duchy should have secured the land but couldn’t be bothered. Instead, kids had to stay off school and people closed their windows and stayed indoors on boiling hot days.
if they discover a platinum mine underneath it you can guarantee the King would soon put up some decent fences.

When assets are realised the balance ultimately end up with the Treasury.

Not if it is somebody who lives within one of the Duchies. That goes to them, they hold special rights and it does not go to the Treasury but to the relevant Duchy

@simpsonthecat The original owner of the part of the land in question appears to have gone bust sometime last year and so the land only became bona vacantia after July 2025 following a fire, some time after the illegal tip was established.

I imagine it was offered to Wigan Council soon after the Duchy became aware of the situation and the Duchy realised the costs involved so was not obliged to take it on. Part of the land already belongs to WC so they are responsible for that area.

One would of thought WC or the police should have taken more preventative action a long time ago! A quote from a local resident states “For about three weeks in January, there were 20-30 18-wheel articulated lorries full of waste going to the yard, the scrap having been moved to fields nearby, and it just piled higher and higher." It appears to be mainly household waste - where was it coming from and why didn't anyone stop them? Why has is taken a year for the council to take action? Lots of unanswered questions and I think WC are trying to shift blame here.

IMO it seems logical that WC take on the rest of it and then decide what to do with land once it is cleared. I think the news articles are just sensationalising a fairly straightforward business deal. The Duchy have offered to discuss terms. If WC really doesn't want to take it on, it will then presumably fall to the Crown Estate/Treasury anyway.

I agree with what you said previously:
I do think it is appalling that landowners are solely responsible for the cost of removing illegal waste dumped on their land. It costs some landowners thousands of pounds a year. We need better ways to deal with waste to prevent it happening in the first place and stronger penalties to discourage the criminals that do this. The EA is a useless organisation.

Between councils, the environment agency and police it is apparent both in this case, the Oxford case, the site at Basser Wood in Kent that I posted about earlier, and no doubt other illegal dumps in other parts of the country locals are quick to report the dumping and authorities are slow to do anything about it, including closing off access to the dump sites to prevent further illegal dumping.

I don't know the back history of how the law came to be that landowners were responsible for clear ups but I imagine that when that went on the statute book they were talking about the odd bag of domestic waste or the occasional mattress. Not tens or even hundreds of tons of potentially toxic waste. It is time government took the problem seriously and gave the authorities the power and indeed the responsibility to take rapid action to close off sites, identify the criminals, confiscate lorries bringing the waste and prosecute with significant penalties.

It's really quite ridiculous to blame The King for the situation on a small area of land that has accidentally come under the ownership of the Duchy. In any case he/the Duchy can't just steam in to clear the waste on his 30% of the land as it will need to be a joint project with the Council who seem to be dragging their heels so far.

No one on here, as I have said before, is blaming KC for this situation happening. It is what action the duchy takes now that matters

This 🖕

Local authorities in this country are close to bankruptcy because of continued ideological de-funding by the Tories.

Here's a situation for Charles to lead on and show us what the gold standard should be. We're waiting.

Exactly @AreYouSureAskedNaomi

@FalseSpring frankly you can ‘imagine’ why Charles Windsor hasn’t cleaned up his many messes all you like - it’s meaningless . You are inventing scenarios in order to excuse the Windsors . We know the ‘law’ re the Duchies - a medieval remnant that for some reason we are told to look the other way on .

What do we know ?

We know William and Charles continue to line their own pockets - they charge state assets including armed services, schools and hospitals . They pocket the money and do not pay their due tax- se said medieval ‘law’ remnant .

Oh so W and C are ‘forced’ to charge full market rent ? Ok- so do so then give the money earned back . Donate it . I know that donating is a strange concept for the Windsors but I’m sure someone among their thousands of employees would be brave enough to explain it .

Charles now knows if he didn’t before . Pay for the clean up of the whole site Charles . Set an example and put your hand in your pocket for once.
Better still - you don’t own the duchies just as you don’t own the crown estate . Stop ripping off the people you say you ‘serve’

@FalseSpring

I’ve just noticed one of your sentences :

‘The Duchy realised the costs involved so was not obliged to take it on’

Yes we know that their particular medieval get out clause allows them to do this. Other land owners rich and poor are responsible for cleaning their own land . Not these billionaires.

There it is. The greed and selfishness writ large. None of the Windsors - Saxe Coburg Gothas - were rich . Victoria was virtually bankrupt. They have made billions off the backs of uk taxpayers since the early 20th century . But cleaning up a small site involved costs so hand it over to the creaking state that you’ve sucked dry . That tracks .

And then we find the Duchy isn't donating it to 'charity' as long claimed but is spending it on renovating property in order to increase its rental income and further enrich C3:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens?quot

The government is introducing new requirements for rental properties to bring them up to standard for insulation/heating/energy efficiency. Renovations are likely related to this and improving living standards for the tenants.

The article is over two years old...

Indeed.

Hence the sentence 'The Duchies are managed separately.'

I was explaining that bona vacantia applies across the UK, not just on Duchy land.

I’ve just noticed one of your sentences :

‘The Duchy realised the costs involved so was not obliged to take it on’

Yes we know that their particular medieval get out clause allows them to do this.

Incorrect.

No-one is obliged to take on an inheritance that they wish to refuse.

Disclaimers.
Where a person becomes entitled to an interest in settled property but disclaims the interest, then, if the disclaimer is not made for a consideration in money or money’s worth, this Act shall apply as if he had not become entitled to the interest.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984.