In reply to Mark Kemball:
An appeal isn't an opportunity to have your case re-heard because you don't like the decision. It will look only at whether the judge made an error in interpreting the law or the facts. Presumably DNP's lawyers are satisfied that there is a reasonable argument for this.
Having read the judgement, it seems clear that prior to the Act it had been accepted that wild camping was not a right and required landowner's permission. It seems to have been assumed that when the Act permitted "outdoor recreation" this included wild camping. However the judge decided that the Act only confirmed a long-standing customary right of access on foot and horseback, and that if Parliament had intended to create a new right to camp it should have expressly said so. Instead the matter had been barely discussed when the Act was being passed.
However he also said that the only point of wild camping is to facilitate longer hiking trips. This seems to me to misunderstand the nature of wild camping. For many people the camp is the main point of their visit, and the hike is only to facilitate that. Perhaps this is one of the grounds for appeal.
Whilst we must hope for a successful outcome, this is by no means certain. Whatever the political arguments may be for extending access, the courts will usually restrict themselves to interpreting the law as it is and if changes are needed that is a matter for Parliament.
However I think some of the concerns about the permissive arrangements are overstated. Permissive access agreements are not uncommon, and (for example) organisations such as the National Trust and Forestry Commission often allow access even where land is not covered by CRoW. A large part of the National Cycle Network is on permissive rights of way agreed with the landowner, and sometimes paid for. Of course this is not as good as a legal right, but neither is it necessarily a problem in practice.