Understanding Restricted land and TOAL in UK

[PeteW]

So it seems clear to me by the number of can I fly here type questions that it is probably a bit too complicated/unclear as to all of the answers!
but, I have a question which I‘ve not seen discussed. So there are many place which restrict TOAL on their land. In general, if you take TO/Land from outside, you are probably ok to overfly that land. But what is the situation if you do TO out with the restricted area, but then walk onto the land (assuming you are allowed to be there)? you fly around a bit, then wander back to the start point to land?
im not even sure if it is the person that has to be off the land or the aircraft itself. You could get it to Return to Home which is off the restricted land even when you are somewhere else.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Usually you should always TOAL and stay off the property while flying.

National Trust state no overflight for most (?) of its properties . . . legally binding ?
They could say visitors safety is compromised by OOP, but with sub 250 you should be able to.

Of course always keeping in mind common courtesy, flying early morn / late in day to avoid crowds, keeping somewhat off to the side to avoid OOP anyway, and not annoy people.

 

[zocalo]

National Trust seem to have shifted their "justification" a little recently, not sure about English Heritage. NT's ban was based on some tenuous link to a 1960s era (IIRC) bye law about commercial photography and the more general grounds of most fliers being uncertified and unregistered, which clearly hasn't been true for a few years now. I think they're now trying to exert their rights as a landowner, but are not quite sure how to word it to get as near a blanket ban as they can while still having some legal grounds to enforce it if needed because of the overflight "loophole".

Obviously for many of their properties and grounds, especially stately homes and their formal gardens, the proximity and VLOS rules in the Drone Code alone are enough to preclude a legal flight. The issues start to come with country estates where the grounds are vacant enough to allow for safe and legal flights, or just the wide expanses of open countryside they have. Their concern about visitor safety is valid, but that isn't really a landowner's problem legally; responsibility for the safe operation of an aircraft (including drones) always lies with the pilot, although the victim might not know that and they'd incur legal costs sorting that out.

The most important point to keep in mind is that as landowner they absolutely have the right to say you can't operate from within their grounds, and as a result I think they would almost certainly prevail in court should it come to that. However, if you obey the Drone Code and operate entirely from outside their property there really isn't much they can do apart from bring a civil suit on grounds of something like violation of privacy or disturbing the peace, and that could go either way legally, making it quite risky for them. VLOS will also limit your overflight range, of course, so for the larger estates you're not going to get too far inside the boundary anyway, which probably limits the photographic value of over flying many of their properties as well.

Personally, if it's a formal property with a perimeter fence of some kind, I intend to respect their wishes and not operate over NT et al land at all, but for the right shot might make an exception if the property is closed and I would otherwise be Drone Code compliant, keeping in mind that staff/residents may still be in the grounds. IMHO, their blanket ban, without any consideration of the land in question, is a massive overkill - I totally respect their drone bans for crowded formal grounds, and even busier rural estates, but areas of open countryside need a more nuanced approach, especially given all the other activities that they do allow on that land. My take is that if it's open land, then as long as I can find somewhere I can legally operate from, like a public right of way or the foreshore if at the coast, then I'll just follow the Drone Code and make a judgement call based on how many people/animals are around (and what type/age for the latter), whether it's a wildlife-related SSSI, and so on.

In my experience, once you're airborne, as long as you have picked a discreet location to operate from and keep the drone at a decent altitude, most people won't notice the drone and will quite often walk by and just assume you're doing something on your phone. On the few occassions I have been approached, it's always been friendly and driven more curiosity than concerns for safety/privacy. I know others have had experiences with the public that have been more confrontational, but I think a lot of the bad press is more down to the media trying to whip up typical NIMBY/"think of the children" type hysteria than any genuine public fear of drones.

 

[old man mavic]

when you decide to fly over whatever at a location from outside of the area you want to film ,its always incumbent on you, to do so with respect to other people, who may be at the place you wish to fly over.
we all know that when it comes to the under 250g drone class ,that here in the UK we are allowed to fly them over people ,but not groups of people in a confined area,and also over dwellings roads and commercial premises
but in order to do so we still have to follow the drone code
on Saturday just gone, myself and a flying buddy ,went to the site of the now closed Tower Colliery,which is now part of a new Zip Line facility, it houses the reception areas and a nice licenced cafe
we could have if we wanted to found a layby and just flown over the place from that location,
but due to the wind that had began to blow stronger than our mini drones would be safe in ,
we decided to go to the site and ask permission to take off at the top end of the car park which was away from most of the parked cars ,and then we flew our MPPs around the site observing the distance rules that our A2 C of C s afforded us , because we had permission to fly there from the owners ,we got some nice pics of the development ,without any hassle or unpleasantness from anyone .
so the moral of the story is just because you could fly at a location ,doesn't,always mean you should if it going to bring the hobby into conflict with the powers that be

 

[Cymru]

So it seems clear to me by the number of can I fly here type questions that it is probably a bit too complicated/unclear as to all of the answers!
but, I have a question which I‘ve not seen discussed. So there are many place which restrict TOAL on their land. In general, if you take TO/Land from outside, you are probably ok to overfly that land. But what is the situation if you do TO out with the restricted area, but then walk onto the land (assuming you are allowed to be there)? you fly around a bit, then wander back to the start point to land?
im not even sure if it is the person that has to be off the land or the aircraft itself. You could get it to Return to Home which is off the restricted land even when you are somewhere else.

Its private property and as such they can dictate exactly what you can or can't do on that property. So if they say you cant stand on it to operate a drone then you cant.

Legally all they can do the first time is ask you to leave the property. That's it.
If you return and do it again in theory that trespass becomes aggravated and in theory they could get the police to remove you.

Ultimately you can set whatever rules you want for your property - if you want to ban blue socks or people called "Fred" you within your rights to do so.

 

[Cymru]

National Trust state no overflight for most (?) of its properties . . . legally binding ?

No it's not. The statement itself is actually misleading and illegal under law.
CAA have confirmed this in writing several times - they do not have airspace authority to place such a ban.

In addition their entire "no-drone" bye-law is from the 1960s specifying a ban on motorised "conveyances". They have no newer bye-laws.

 

[Cymru]

on Saturday just gone, myself and a flying buddy ,went to the site of the now cl

I got some footage of Tower before the zip line a few years ago. Its suprising how well "abandoned coal mine" footage sells!
Had a pick up in sales when the Zip line opened.

The monstrosity wind farm up the hill also sells quite well - but as you said...its always windy there! Thats a Mavic 2 Pro in A2 not a mini job on that hillside.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

No it's not. The statement itself is actually misleading and illegal under law.
CAA have confirmed this in writing several times - they do not have airspace authority to place such a ban.

In addition their entire "no-drone" bye-law is from the 1960s specifying a ban on motorised "conveyances". They have no newer bye-laws.

Exactly, I think I read some info about the origins of no drones being they didn't want commercial photography (that's not theirs for sale) of their locations.
Protect their income.
Not sure if true or not, but as long as a pilot is not breaking any of the CAA drone rules, and flying from a public access spot, there is little the NT can do . . . apart form come out and bluff pilots about it to coerce them to land.

 

[Cymru]

The bye-laws are here:

https://nt.global.ssl.fastly.net/documents/the-national-trust-byelaws-1965.pdf

The bye-laws for the ban from 1965 are here:


Amusingly the maximum punishment is:


Sounds ok - £20 for a "permit" to fly and £2 a day after that.....

Ultimately its private property - they can prohibit you standing on, take off, landing operating on their land if they wish. But the worst they can ask you to do is leave the property.


What they're also not admitting to is after legal advice they changed the wording on their website to a ban on flying *from* their land.
Previously it was from or over. ( Flying drones at our places )

So ultimately they no longer make the claim about overflight at all - its vanished. They know and were told it was legally invalid.

 

[zocalo]

Exactly, I think I read some info about the origins of no drones being they didn't want commercial photography (that's not theirs for sale) of their locations.

I did dig out the specific bye law at one point, but it's a 1960s era thing that allows them to manage any commercial use of photographs taken on any of their properties, the practical implications of which can be found at this site. The tl;dr upshot is that you can't benefit commercially from any images taken on or of National Trust land without their permission (and, typically, a fee). Basically, if you're in any way going to make money from an image, then the NT wants it's veto and cut, and getting that permission can be challenging unless you have connections and/or deep pockets.

It absolutely does not, and the NT have confirmed this on multiple occassions, prevent anyone using images for personal use. They also don't prevent people using professional camera gear to photograph their properties, including tripods, for non-commercial use - nor am I aware of them taking a cut of any prize money for images of their properties that have won prizes in photographic competitions, including those with prizes in excess of £10k such as LPotY, for that matter.

Putting all that together, it's always been one hell of a stretch to a blanket ban of drones, even allowing for the fact that the most likely ue of them will indeed be photograpy, given they don't ban the use of professional cameras and (in open spaces) tripods. Now that their secondary argument that "most users of drones are unlicensed and untrained" is also mostly moot, I suspect they'd have a really hard time making a case in court on any grounds as long as the imagery was not used commercially, the flight originated from public land, and was fully compliant with the Drone Code. They clearly know all this too, because they have changed their wording recently, in particular removing the bit about overflights from public land.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

It's fascinating about the commercial photography thing.
Obviously from an era where the NT was under threat of losing substantial income from this.
It must be simply that '60s byelaw on their 'patch', as it's not such on regular commercial / private buildings or structures in the UK, is it ?
Eg, so it was legal to fly and film the Millennium wheel, photograph it, and sell the images on line ?

 

[zocalo]

It's fascinating about the commercial photography thing.
Obviously from an era where the NT was under threat of losing substantial income from this.
It must be simply that '60s byelaw on their 'patch', as it's not such on regular commercial / private buildings or structures in the UK, is it ?
Eg, so it was legal to fly and film the Millennium wheel, photograph it, and sell the images on line ?

The bye law they cite is specific to NT land and properties, yes. It might not be particularly relevant for things like the odd photograph/video clip being used commercially, especially given current stock image licensing costs, but I'm pretty sure the NT makes a *lot* of money on the back of this for major productions like "Game of Thrones" or the stready stream of period pieces that are often filmed at their properties.

That said, the owners of a number of distinctive modern buildings have attempted to use copyright laws to prevent any unauthorized commercial use of images of their properties, to varying degrees of success depending on the legal jurisdiction. That's a *whole* other discussion though!

 

[Cymru]

It's fascinating about the commercial photography thing.
Obviously from an era where the NT was under threat of losing substantial income from this.
It must be simply that '60s byelaw on their 'patch', as it's not such on regular commercial / private buildings or structures in the UK, is it ?
Eg, so it was legal to fly and film the Millennium wheel, photograph it, and sell the images on line ?

Remember NT have a particularly dubious reputation for abusing this.

Going after users on Flickr (non commercial) who had posted photos with Whitby Abby in the background by sending threatening lawyer letters, going to all stock sites demanding any images of anywhere they own removed (including random bits of UK coastline and sea stacks several million years old etc).

They have a history of legal overreach and abuse of their position (in that they get donated or given huge chunks of the UK coastline and national parks and then abuse that for their own gain).