Crown Estate profits remain at record high but windfarm boost set to fall back
This has helped bring returns to the Treasury to £5 billion over the past decade.
The Crown Estate is run as an independent business, but its profits are paid directly to the Treasury, which then hands on a small portion of the money to the monarchy, known as the Sovereign Grant, which supports the official duties of the royal family.
Earnings have spiked to record levels in the past two years thanks to option fees – payments made by companies to reserve a patch of the seabed to eventually build their wind turbines on.
But The Crown Estate said the so-called option fee uplift is expected to drop back significantly in the current financial year – down from £1.07 billion in 2024/25 to around £25 million a year from January 2026 as projects move into the construction phase.
This will see the net revenue profit 'normalise', according to The Crown Estate.
But it said underlying profits, stripping out the option fee boost, stood at £366 million in the year to the end of March and would continue to grow.
The Crown Estate owns the vast majority of Britain's seabed, stretching up to 12 nautical miles from the mainland, and leases part of it to wind farm operators.
It also has a 180,000-acre property holding across the UK, including much of London's Regent Street and St James's, and large swathes of arable land and forestry.
Dan Labbad, chief executive at The Crown Estate, said it had been a 'landmark year' for collection, but flagged a difficult backdrop in the wider economy.
He said: 'This year's results are set against significant global economic disturbance.
'This affects the UK and Crown Estate just as it affects countries and businesses.
'This has made for a more challenging period.'
The results showed the value of The Crown Estate's land and assets was £15 billion in 2024/25, down from £15.5 billion the previous year.
The drop came after gains in its urban and rural businesses were offset by a £1 billion fall in the valuation of its marine assets.
It said the valuation of the marine portfolio had jumped higher in anticipation of option fees, but that it reduced as this income was recognised, falling back to £3.4 billion from £4.4 billion in 2023/24.
The figures come after the new Crown Estate Bill was passed earlier this year, handing it more powers to invest and borrow.
The Treasury has said the changes will allow The Crown Estate to invest more in green energy and help the UK achieve net zero.
Recent investments by The Crown Estate include a joint venture announced in May with Lendlease for housing and science and innovation space across six projects.
It said this has the potential to deliver 100,000 jobs, 26,000 homes and have an overall value of up to £24 billion.
Mr Labbad said: 'Thanks to new legislation, we now have greater flexibility to invest across our portfolio, increasing our resilience and potential, and enabling us to create lasting benefits for the country and its finances.'
Under previous rules, The Crown Estate could not use its cash reserves to invest because it had to hold them against the prospect of future financial losses.
But greater ability to borrow will see it invest more in offshore wind.
The Government has also committed to doubling its onshore wind capacity by 2030 and Mr Labbad said The Crown Estate was reviewing its land portfolio to see if more onshore wind projects could be 'viable and relevant'.
It will report back later in 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rattled Reeves was ‘in a bad place' on night before Commons tears
Rachel Reeves's week from hell ended with her crying on the Government front bench on Wednesday afternoon, but the cracks had been evident for some time. Three about-turns on welfare policy, a rising public spending bill she will have to pay in the autumn, and a mysterious crisis in her private life have come together to create a personal and political disaster for the Chancellor. As a born-again fiscal hawk, Ms Reeves has been battling for weeks to keep the Government's welfare plans together, while Labour rebels and Downing Street have torn them apart. Last Thursday, she was at a visit to a JCB factory when she learned that Sir Keir Starmer had performed his first policy reversal, junking up to £2.5 billion of the savings she had hoped to make from the benefits bill. But within hours of the concession, with the Government facing down a rebellion of more than 100 MPs, it became clear that it would not be enough. Ms Reeves, who as a moderate does not command support among rebellious Left-wingers, was dispatched as part of a ministerial team to convince MPs to vote for the softer plans. Those involved in the intense lobbying effort say the talks took an emotional toll on everyone involved. On Saturday, reports emerged that Ms Reeves had spent much of the day in tears after negotiations with colleagues and fights with intransigent backbenchers. The reports were denied by the Treasury. The following day, another newspaper published a story claiming that Ms Reeves had made Marie Tidball, disability campaigner MP, sob by threatening her on a phone call. That report was also denied. But by Monday, Labour MPs were openly on the warpath about the welfare changes and were blaming the Prime Minister and his Chancellor for refusing to engage with their concerns. 'The policy needs tweaking, but this could have been handled a hell of a lot better,' admitted one minister, grimly. Ms Reeves and her concerns about the Budget were blamed for the dispute, with a large chunk of the rebel caucus calling for her to break her fiscal rules or introduce a radical wealth tax. Sir Keir was being pulled in opposite directions by his Chancellor and his MPs, with both threatening dire consequences if he went the wrong way. Ms Reeves, in return, has made the case that any reversal on welfare would make the Government's financial position even more precarious. In the end, it was the rebels who won the battle for Sir Keir's heart. On Tuesday morning, as the Government was preparing for a humiliating second policy reversal, Ms Reeves appeared before MPs for a routine session of Treasury questions. 'She was in a bad place,' recalled one MP who was in the chamber at the time. 'She's not very good in the Commons and is not a confident performer anyway, but she was just not on her game. She wasn't taking criticism very well, and got quite rattled a number of times.' The tense exchange with Labour backbenchers and opposition MPs bubbled into a row with the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who complained that the Chancellor was taking too long to answer questions. Sir Lindsay began coughing during her answers – a warning to stop rambling – before interrupting her: 'Order!' Ms Reeves snapped back: 'Oh, all right! Fine.' As the cameras panned away, one MP in the chamber recalled: 'She sat down in a massive huff and rolled her eyes at him, which he did not appreciate whatsoever.' The exchange barely registered in Westminster on a day of high drama, but did prompt a raised eyebrow from the political sketch-writer Quentin Letts, who tweeted: 'Rare for any MP, let alone a Cabinet minister, to behave thus to a Speaker. Feeling under pressure?' Behind the scenes, the Chancellor was indeed under significant strain. Walking around the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday evening, as the Government performed yet another expensive about-turn from the despatch box, Ms Reeves was left to contemplate how to raise another £5 billion in the Budget and keep her job. She returned to her office briefly at one stage in the debate, looking glum, and waited for the final vote at 7.20pm before travelling back to her Downing Street flat. With policy debate and political backbiting happening around her, it has since emerged that Ms Reeves was also dealing with 'personal matters' that made her week even more difficult. Downing Street and Treasury sources were tight-lipped about what problems the Chancellor was facing, but she arrived in Parliament again on Wednesday for Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) without having spoken to Sir Keir. Arriving at the entrance to the chamber, behind the Speaker's chair, she bumped into Sir Lindsay, who was still furious about their tiff the previous day. The dam breaks In a heated conversation lasting no more than a couple of minutes, he admonished the Chancellor about her conduct and pointed out that the online post about it had received 60,000 views. It was at that point, bystanders attest, that the dam broke. Ms Reeves 'burst into tears' moments before she would appear on camera at PMQs. As 12 o'clock neared, she looked visibly upset to colleagues filtering into the Commons. Walking quickly to her place behind Sir Keir, Ms Reeves accidentally sat on Bridget Phillipson's lap, causing a 'bit of a kerfuffle', according to one observer. 'She was very, very emotional,' said one MP, who watched the Chancellor enter the room. 'It was hard to watch. From the beginning, she was wiping away tears.' Chris Ward, the Labour MP who acts as Sir Keir's parliamentary aide, was quickly brushed off when he reached across from the bench behind to check on her welfare. That moment, captured on the Commons TV cameras and shared quickly online, has since become one of the defining political images of Ms Reeves. 'Something very strange going on' The markets immediately clocked that something was wrong, spiking gilt yields and tanking the value of the pound. All attention was diverted from Sir Keir and Kemi Badenoch and towards the Cabinet minister quietly sobbing on the front bench. Those close to Ms Reeves insist that her tears were not caused by the week's politics. Wild rumours of an early-morning bust-up in Downing Street between the Prime Minister and Chancellor were swiftly and aggressively denied by all involved, even those alleged to have spread them. There has been no attempt to explain further why Ms Reeves was so visibly upset, despite attempts by the Conservatives to force a more fulsome response. 'There is something very strange going on, and 'personal matter' doesn't really clear it,' Mrs Badenoch's spokesman said. Instead, the rest of the Chancellor's afternoon was hidden from public view, first in her Commons office and then in Downing Street, where she worked for the remainder of the day. The last sighting of her was at 12.30, when PMQs ended and she reached for support from her sister Ellie – the Labour Party's chairman. 'She grabbed Ellie and dashed off to the office,' an MP recalled. 'She was rushing. She clearly just wanted to get the hell out.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's welfare rebellion: Starmer must learn from his mistakes
A clash between the government and Labour MPs over disability benefits was foreseeable long before this week's Commons rebellion. That doesn't mean a crisis was inevitable. Compromise might have been reached before the 11th-hour climbdown that averted a defeat in parliament. The conflagration that burned a lot of Sir Keir Starmer's authority was all the greater because trust had broken down. The twin causes were failure of political judgment in Downing Street and bad policy. The prime minister underestimated the potency of MPs' objections to the withdrawal of personal independence payment (Pip) from disabled people, and overestimated the capacity of his whips to bully and cajole his party into accepting the changes. Those errors flowed from a more fundamental flaw – the conflation of public sector reform with fiscal consolidation in ways that raised justified suspicion about the underlying motive for the policy. Most of the rebels recognise that there are problems with the existing benefits system. The dramatic increase in Pip claims over recent years testifies to a deeper social malaise. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and in ways that, over time, cost less. But that argument was obscured by the requirement to find £5bn in savings at short notice so that the Treasury might stay on track to honour fiscal rules. It was not credible to say the Pip cuts were devised with compassionate intent to 'fix' the system when the announcement was made days before the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, under pressure to find extra budget headroom in her forecasts, delivered the spring statement. Nobody was fooled and Sir Keir was foolish to think they might be. The prime minister's defenders note that he has many competing demands on his attention. His crass and inflammatory dismissal of backbench complaints as 'noises off' was made at a Nato summit where the prime minister was focused on persuading Donald Trump not to abandon the alliance. But the offending remark was not a slip of the tongue. It expressed impatience with any criticism that is presumed to originate from a recalcitrant left faction of the Labour party. This habit was learned in opposition when Sir Keir's strategy for winning power involved ruthless enforcement of message discipline and suppression of dissent. That reflex prevents the prime minister from recognising that his critics might hail from a wide cross-section of Labour and society, and might have valid points. As a result, a dispute over benefit changes escalated into a crisis of confidence in the leadership. The result is a messy compromise that defers the question of how Pip should be properly reformed, while the Treasury's fiscal conundrum has become even more acute. The issue of disability benefits was always going to be uniquely sensitive for Labour MPs, who see the protection of vulnerable citizens and reinforcement of the social safety net as primary functions of their party. But the rebellion over Pip is unlikely to be the last such confrontation, especially if Downing Street doesn't learn the right lessons. Using the language of public sector reform as camouflage on ill-judged budget cuts was a grave mistake, compounded by arrogant rejection of MPs' objections. The prime minister now has a difficult task repairing his authority and rebuilding relations with his party. If he does not understand the origins of the crisis, he condemns himself to repeat it.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
UK ‘growth' strategy is making the world a more dangerous place
Either way, the question is academic. Neither can be used, at the moment, without Donald Trump's say-so, and I suspect he would only deliver that say-so if it would benefit the United States. What the current cost might be for the Dreadnought nuclear submarines being built by the time they are ready – this is currently running at £41 billion including contingency costs – is anyone's guess. READ MORE: Treasury says Rachel Reeves crying at PMQs was 'personal matter' In addition to this astronomical expenditure, Keir Starmer has now ordered twelve F-35 nuclear-bomb-carrying stealth jets from the US at an as-yet-unknown price or delivery date. Why does the RAF needs stealth bombers in the first place, let alone 12 of such an aircraft? I appreciate that it might have something to do with Nato, in which Trump appears to have little interest, having walked out of its last little jolly before the end of its agenda. However, if it means selling American-made armaments, then that probably would be to his delight. Keir Starmer has already admitted that he took his eye off the ball (when parliament was about to vote down his welfare policies) through his complete attention on all things Nato and his notion of being an important world leader. READ MORE: Plane damaged by Palestine Action at Brize Norton spotted over Scotland It looks to me that he has still put his world leadership notions to the fore with a pathetic attempt to pacify his MPs, while still pandering to all things nuclear in the arms industry. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has flown to Turkey on a trade mission involving any defence ties the UK has with that country. He wants to export a number of UK Eurofighter Typhoons jets. This is all part of another free-trade agreement, this time between the UK and Turkey. Talk about UK policies on growth. More like contributing to making the world a more dangerous planet. Why on earth anyone in Holyrood would want to be a part of this is beyond my comprehension. Time yet again to make more noise regarding Scotland's independence. Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife TUESDAY'S 'click bait' was on BBC Scotland's Mornings with Kaye Adams, where the producers covered the UK Government's reduction of Personal Independence Payments, the Scottish version of which – called Adult Disability Payment – will be affected due to the way the Barnett Formula works. The initial guests were from the TaxPayers' Alliance and The Poverty Alliance, both with differing views. The taxpayer guy said the benefits bill was predicted to 'rocket' to £70 billion in 2035. The key word being 'rocket'. The poverty guy said that the wealth gap was increasing, with more people needing help. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar 'totally humiliated' by Labour's dramatic benefits U-turn What I find disgraceful is the frequent anecdotes broadcast about 'the guy who lives next door and never works', who has a wife in another house and is living with his bidie-in, to whom he has sired a child, who have two cars and the latest smart phones. This is the same trope that the Conservatives used during the 1980s in Thatcher's era, which lambasted people that had been turfed out of a job. They were told to 'get on their bikes to find a job' by Norman Tebbit, the Chingford Skinhead named by the Spitting Image crew. They were lazy and good for nothing, waiting for handouts. Whilst there are undoubtedly some people with the intention of getting something for nothing, the popular press during that time and again now seem to be creating a view that this abuse is rife. The truth is something quite different. READ MORE: What it's actually like to apply for DWP disability benefits Hansard (the Westminster Parliament record of reference) states that the overall rate of overpayments is now 3.7% (£9.7 billion) for 2023-24, compared to 3.6% (£8.3 billion) in 2022-23. Overpayments due to fraud were 2.8% compared to 2.7% last year while claimant error and official error remained at 0.6% and 0.3% respectively. The rate of overpayments in Universal Credit was 12.4% in 2023-24 compared to 12.7% in 2022-23. Compare this to tax evasion. The UK's tax gap has widened, according to latest figures from HM Revenue & Customs. New data show that the UK missed out on £46.8bn of tax liabilities in the 2023-2024 financial year, or 5.3% of the total theoretical tax liabilities. The gap refers to the difference between the total amount of taxes owed to the government and the amount actually collected. In 2024 this was reported to be £39.8bn or 4.8% of overall theoretical liabilities. It would seem that pursuing tax-avoidance loopholes would be a better use of parliamentary time and effort. Alistair Ballantyne Angus I WAS well impressed with Pat Kane's article 'Are you one of the doomscrollers? It's time for us to focus on hope instead' (June 28). He articulated on a number of issues that concern me. 'Hopescroll' – spot on. James Grosset Montrose
