DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Detailed National Trust property NFZ map

zocalo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2018
Messages
917
Reactions
1,070
Found this a few days back and just posted a link to this within the Flying in England thread, but given how useful it is figured it deserves it's own thread to make it easier to find.

For those that don't know, The National Trust has a bylaw that bans the use of drones on any of their properties/land, but it's not marked on most common mapping tools exactly where their site boundaries are. Well, it turns out that the National Trust has a map showing just that information right here:

Follow the history of our places with Land Map

You'll need to turn on a couple of extra layers to get all the details, then zoom in on the areas you are interested in, but it seems accurate enough to establish their No Fly Zones and includes land acquisitions that seem to be pretty much current.

Note also it's legally OK to overfly National Trust land having taken off from public land outside them, provided that you remain within the broader CAA regulations. Particularly relevant would be 50m from buildings/people (150m from built up areas), max altitude of 120m, and maintaining VLOS at all times.

EDIT: Or not. See post immediately below, and make up your own mind. Either way, don't be a jerk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silverfox53
Note also it's legally OK to overfly National Trust land having taken off from public land outside them, provided that you remain within the broader CAA regulations. Particularly relevant would be 50m from buildings/people (150m from built up areas), max altitude of 120m, and maintaining VLOS at all times.

Not quite true. It is not a criminal offence but it is a civil matter and the Trust could, if they so desired, drag you through the (very expensive) civil courts. Whether they would or not would depend on circumstances.

As I’ve posted a few times, landowners absolutely have the right to prohibit flying over their land at anything under 500’ at least for exactly the same reasons I’m allowed to ask you not to camp in my garden (which also isn’t a criminal offence). Sounds a daft comparison I know but UK civil law is quite daft in some parts . It is exactly this civil nature of trespass and nuisance that the police can’t evict travellers from private land unless the court issues an injunction.

This right is made clear (in typical legalistic language) in the Civil Aviation Act.

Also just to clarify as well you cannot overfly built up areas or crowds at all (simply because with a 120m max altitude you can’t keep 150m distance!) but you can overfly isolated building /people assuming a minimum altitude of 50m as you are adhering to minimum separation.
 
I never knew that the National Trust could pass by-laws. I thought that was the preserve of District Councils. Even parish/town council have to ask the District Council tp pass the by law on their behalf.
 
I never knew that the National Trust could pass by-laws. I thought that was the preserve of District Councils. Even parish/town council have to ask the District Council tp pass the by law on their behalf.

They are not by-laws. Any landowner can forbid drone flights over their property just as they can stick up a ‘Private Property - Keep Out’. You ‘own’ the air above your property to a certain, slightly vague, altitude and can ‘reasonably’ expect to enjoy your land below it free from trespass and nuisance. Horribly legalistic and would take a court case to sort out the exact intent of the meaning but there it is.

Enforcement is exactly the same also. The police aren’t going to do anything (unless you happen to be breaking some other law - breach of the peace, public nuisance etc) so they’d have to issue proceedings through the civil courts.

This is *very* expensive and so unlikely it depends on the landowner. Some are very rich and would do it for fun. The National Trust has been known to be less than humourous in its approach...

To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.

Again - I am not saying such action will be successful or that you shouldn’t make the flight. It is simply to raise awareness of the fact there is more to the law than the regs.
 
They are not by-laws. Any landowner can forbid drone flights over their property just as they can stick up a ‘Private Property - Keep Out’. You ‘own’ the air above your property to a certain, slightly vague, altitude and can ‘reasonably’ expect to enjoy your land below it free from trespass and nuisance. Horribly legalistic and would take a court case to sort out the exact intent of the meaning but there it is.

Thanks for the full reply. The initial post said by laws. The rest of your post I totally understand and agree with. Many Councils are beginning to back off from no fly zones on land they own due to the near impossibility of monitoring them and taking action. Highlighting flying areas by saying no flying seems to encourage the few reckless people....
 
Thanks for the full reply. The initial post said by laws. The rest of your post I totally understand and agree with. Many Councils are beginning to back off from no fly zones on land they own due to the near impossibility of monitoring them and taking action. Highlighting flying areas by saying no flying seems to encourage the few reckless people....

By law I simply meant civil law in general. Note UK civil law tends to favour the lawyers over everyone else as it is only enforceable through the courts and trust me, everyone will want a slice.

I was nearly dragged through a case (not drone related) which I was 100% confident of winning. My solicitor explained though that I may still have to pay substantial costs even if I won. His first question was ‘can you afford to spend at least £20-30k on this?’. No chance so I decided discretion was the better part of valour :D
 
Note also I have been speaking with a friendly member of the local constabulary (who also flies) and they said you’d have to be going some to end up with their getting involved.

Flying over a football ground on match day would do it, flying over a farmers field wouldn’t concern them.
 
Its a shame that some pilots don't have common sense.

I can only reiterate Rule #1 of drone flying - Don’t be a knob.

Apparently someone did actually fly over Bramhall Lane on match day the the afore mentioned plod has first hand experience. I know someone got in to trouble flying over Old Trafford during a match as well.

As you say - common sense, at least a vague awareness of what’s around you and don’t draw attention to yourself.

Reading what the Yanks have to put up with I’d say we have it pretty easy flying in the UK...
 
Thanks for the legal clarifications, Danny. IANAL, obviously, and there's a lot of misinformation out there, but the links you provided certainly back up your position.

The crux for me seems to be (and this is the National Trust's point - as a member, I recall the discussions quite well) the whole "free from nuisance" aspect. The reason they put the ban in place in the first place was to avoid the noise of drones ruining the experience for those on the property. AFAICT, a similar nuisance policy applies to conventional aircraft, including microlights, etc. - above a certain vaguely defined altitude (usually read as 400ft) they are no longer considered to be causing a disturbance unless they fly back and forth repeatedly, so maybe there's hope for a more selective policy in the future, especially as drones get quieter and more reliable.

FWIW, even though I didn't own a drone at the time, I objected to the outright blanket ban on the grounds that they own huge expanses of land which are quite often all but deserted, but equally I can see how a more selective policy would be trickier to manage. On the flipside, they actively encourage non-commercial photography on their land and run their own photo competitions. They are also supposed to be managing all this land for the enjoyment of all, for a definition of "all" that apparently excludes drone operators.

As PT Barnum said, they clearly can't please all of the people all of the time, and in this case is looks like drone operators are - for now at least - out of luck.
 
@zocalo I would have no issue flying over Trust land but I would be prepared to back up and go if asked.

I certainly wouldn’t be buzzing a stately home for example but the wider grounds? Why not - as I say the chances of anything happening for a one off are very slim.

Sometimes a ban is understandable though. Some land is home to some very rare animals and spring / summer can be a particularly sensitive time for them breeding etc and I have no problem in not flying in such circumstances.

The biggest problem is this ‘reasonable expectation of enjoyment’. It’s entirely down to the judge’s opinion as to whether this was breached. Personally, I don’t think a flight over remote land would breach this or even multiple flights if no one was around - after all who were you disturbing?

Trouble is it’ll cost you £££££££ to go through the courts to find out and if you lost you may face a bill for their costs as well.
 
Of course I quite see the reasons for not allowing drones to fly anywhere near their stately homes and gardens and whatnot, but the NT are also in charge of vast areas of common land that should be free for everybody to use, and I was under the impression that they were granted that land under the proviso that it remained available to everyone. I am finding it very difficult to accept any sort of UAV ban over such commonland and heaths. If we can't fly over wide open safe, public areas like this where the hell are we supposed to fly ? The nature disturbance reason is bollocks anywhere where dogs are allowed - they are rarely on leads, and often actually chase stuff on the ground, so to allow them and not UAVs for that reason sounds rather like active discrimination to me ! They do make their land available for fox-hunting after all - and if hundreds of stampeding horses and loud hunting horns are allowed to disturb nature (and even kill some of it!) it makes it very difficult to respect that as a reason. I am one of those people who respects nature reserves and the animals in them, but beyond breeding season there is very little evidence that animals are negatively affected by the odd multirotor, or that flying out of the vicinity of one causes birds anything except the slightest inconvenience !

Oh dear - I may have gone a bit 'ranty'. Will go and look at some kittens and remain calm :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ren57 and Hyperdark
@zocalo I would have no issue flying over Trust land but I would be prepared to back up and go if asked.

My tack anywhere, unless the conditions are superb and I *know* I'm good in which case I might stand my ground a bit (I always have a copies of the applicable country's regs in my bag). Very much depends on who is doing the asking and how forcefully they ask, obviously.

I certainly wouldn’t be buzzing a stately home for example but the wider grounds? Why not - as I say the chances of anything happening for a one off are very slim.

Sometimes a ban is understandable though. Some land is home to some very rare animals and spring / summer can be a particularly sensitive time for them breeding etc and I have no problem in not flying in such circumstances.

I have zero problems with the ban on houses and any formal grounds - chances are that would all be covered by the CAA's 50m rule anyway once other people in the garden are taken into account. Wider estates are a bit more questionable - they are often deer parks, home to rare birds, or similar, but equally they are often broad expanses of countryside. When the entire land actually is broad expanses of countryside; e.g. in most of the National Parks, I think they're all (NT, NTS, EH, etc., etc.) definitely going too far. As I noted; their general remit is "for the benefit of all", for a definition that excludes drone pilots who might have paid their entrance fees but permits (say) a microlight pilot wearing a GoPro that hasn't.

Personally, I think the blanket bans needsto go and let the individual site managers decide; for smaller houses and gardens, that can understandably be a simple "no drones", larger estates can optionally be more nuanced at the site manager's discretion, and open countryside left to CAA rules. Lambing areas are usually marked in breeding season, as are areas where dogs need to be on leashes at anytime, so it wouldn't be too hard to add "drone zones" where site managers were OK with it, with exceptions for breeding seasons, etc.

The biggest problem is this ‘reasonable expectation of enjoyment’. It’s entirely down to the judge’s opinion as to whether this was breached. Personally, I don’t think a flight over remote land would breach this or even multiple flights if no one was around - after all who were you disturbing?

Trouble is it’ll cost you £££££££ to go through the courts to find out and if you lost you may face a bill for their costs as well.

That "reasonable" needs a better definition of what it actually means establishing, but as you say, no one wants to be the first one (on either side) to go through the time and expense of doing so in court. It'll happen eventually though, there's no doubt of that. My comments on the proposed changes to the UK drone laws did include comments to this effect as well, "clarification of what constitutes a breach of the rights and expectations of those on the ground" or some such, but I suspect (and fear) they've already made up their mind what the new rules are going to be and are just going through the motions with public input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AeroJ
They do make their land available for fox-hunting after all - but hundreds of stampeding horses and loud hunting horns doesn't disturb the nature does it (apart from the ones it kills), so that's fine!

To be fair, the NT only allow permit-based trail hunting, or whatever the proper term is, where a scent is laid and the dogs follow it. No actual foxes are harmed, in theory, but there have been allegations of hunts abusing the permits to do actual hunts and live foxes being killed "in error" when they've been crossed a trail path. There was a pretty close vote at the AGM to put a blanket ban on this in place last year, but apparently the majority of NT members who expressed a preference are just A-OK with disruption and the occassional (or not so occassional, depending on who you listen to) dead fox if there's a bit of spectacle.

The point about the levels of disturbance created still stands though, obviously - those hunts are *loud*, and the military re-enactments by the Sealed Knot et al. that some properties hold even more so. Even a couple of dogs barking at each other causes far more of a noise disturbance than a modern drone once it's up, so there's certainly room for improvement in the consistency of their regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AeroJ
@zocalo ’reasonable’ in this context is a very commonly used and strictly correct correct legal term and left fairly vague intentionally as what is and what is not ‘reasonable’ will depend on the specific circumstances. It is a very ancient term in this context - been used for hundreds of years.

I use it and come across it all the time in relation to commercial contracts.

Even you or I may be subject to a reasonableness test - if you are ever dragged in to a public liability case the judge will look to determine as to whether you acted ‘reasonably’ given the situation, the outcome and your specific relevant knowledge to the broader consequences of your action.

If you sue say an architect, their insurer (me in this case) will look to prove that the architect acted reasonably and that their skill was consummate with that expected of a competent architect in general.

As I’ve said before UK civil law rewards the lawyers more than anyone because they can spend your money arguing about whether what you did was reasonable or not.

The Civil Aviation Act even uses it iro of private land as do most other Acts do it is not going to be defined any more than it already has been over the years.

Only once there has been a case which then sets a precedent will there be any remote clarity on what is and is not reasonable flying over private land. Even then you may end up in a different situation and further precedent is set for the future.

God bless UK civil law (and bear in mind it’s all a bit different in Scotland just to add to the fun) and all its nuances :).
 
@zocalo ’reasonable’ in this context is a very commonly used and strictly correct correct legal term and left fairly vague intentionally as what is and what is not ‘reasonable’ will depend on the specific circumstances. It is a very ancient term in this context - been used for hundreds of years.

I use it and come across it all the time in relation to commercial contracts.

I'm aware of the legal/contractual meaning and purpose - it's similar for me only in technical specifications, e.g clauses like "The supplier shall take all reasonable efforts to...". What I think is needed is more of a steer as to what kind of things would be likely to cross the line without setting absolutes, so people can more readily extrapolate the rest (with the courts being the final arbiter, of course).

The precise circumstances are clearly going to matter, but providing some indicative examples of what would be considered "reasonable" and what would not in sample scenarios would still be useful, I think. That's not really something actual legislation does, of course, but might be something that could possibly come from the CAA as an extension to the Drone Code and taken into account should a similar scenario arise in court.
 
I'm aware of the legal/contractual meaning and purpose - it's similar for me only in technical specifications, e.g clauses like "The supplier shall take all reasonable efforts to...". What I think is needed is more of a steer as to what kind of things would be likely to cross the line without setting absolutes, so people can more readily extrapolate the rest (with the courts being the final arbiter, of course).

The precise circumstances are clearly going to matter, but providing some indicative examples of what would be considered "reasonable" and what would not in sample scenarios would still be useful, I think. That's not really something actual legislation does, of course, but might be something that could possibly come from the CAA as an extension to the Drone Code and taken into account should a similar scenario arise in court.

Oh I quite agree - I’d love to see some proper clarification and guidance over landowner rights etc. It’s not going to happen though I don’t think sadly.

That said the chances of actually getting dragged to the courts, particularly so if you are polite and pack up and go (after all they can’t serve the summons if they don’t know who you are), are very slim.
 
Danny whilst I do not challenge your comments about overflying private land, the comments made about landowners stopping one flying over land they own up to 500 feet leaves me confused. I have to hand an email from the CAA in response to a drone flyer who asked them about overflying private land if taking off from adjacent common land. the reply, dated Jun 14th 2018 , says "Thank for your email. They ( the landowners) do not own the airspace and if you abide by the ANO and other Airspace restrictions e.g. Notams then you may operate". Can you please give me a link to the legislation that mentions the 500 feet as many on my other forum are obviously not aware of this. Many thanks.
 
Danny whilst I do not challenge your comments about overflying private land, the comments made about landowners stopping one flying over land they own up to 500 feet leaves me confused. I have to hand an email from the CAA in response to a drone flyer who asked them about overflying private land if taking off from adjacent common land. the reply, dated Jun 14th 2018 , says "Thank for your email. They ( the landowners) do not own the airspace and if you abide by the ANO and other Airspace restrictions e.g. Notams then you may operate". Can you please give me a link to the legislation that mentions the 500 feet as many on my other forum are obviously not aware of this. Many thanks.

I’ll dig out the relevant sections of the Civil Aviation Act when I am next at my main PC.

Land owners most certainly do have rights to the air above (to a slightly indeterminate altitude - will explain more when I dig the legislation out).

I would be interested in challenging the CAA’s response - if they tell me I am wrong then who am I to argue! Would save me a lot of grief! Of course though it depends who has replied from the CAA. If it is just someone on their ‘help desk’ I would suspect they are not aware of the intricacies of civil law.

What email address was the original email sent to (to the CAA)? I’d be happy to follow it up and try and put this to bed one way or the other
 
Last edited:
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,592
Messages
1,554,183
Members
159,596
Latest member
da4o98