Detailed National Trust property NFZ map

[dannybgoode]

Here’s a good start. Even been tested in court

Land is defined as the surface, subsoil, airspace and anything permanently attached to the land, such as houses. The rights of landowners over airspace are not unlimited; in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd,[54] the action for trespass failed because the violation of airspace took place several hundred metres above the land. This was backed up by the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides that it is not trespass if the aircraft is flying at a reasonable height.[55] An overhanging crane can constitute trespass, as in Woolerton v Costain,[56] as can an advertising sign, as in Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co.[57] Possession does not necessarily mean the ownership of land, but the right to eject or exclude others from it.[58]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif]—-[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif]Also here [/FONT]What is legally my land - InBrief.co.uk

 

[Manty]

Thanks for your response Danny the response comes from [email protected] The response was from one Thomas Guest UAV Services, Civil Aviation Authority. Tel 0330 022 1908.
Hope this helps

 

[dannybgoode]

Thanks for your response Danny the response comes from [email protected] The response was from one Thomas Guest UAV Services, Civil Aviation Authority. Tel 0330 022 1908.
Hope this helps

I’ll drop them a note and see if they care to comment on the Civil aspect.

 

[dannybgoode]

So, my email to the CAA is as follows:


Dear Sir / Madam

I have been doing some research in to the legal position regarding flying drones over private property and seem to have hit a bit of an impasse with conflicting information. With drones being so much in the headlines recently I just wanted to be sure of my understanding of the latest laws as there is a great deal of confusion amongst the drone pilots I speak to on this particular issue.

In Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] the Courts ruled this was not a case of trespass as the violation of airspace took place at several hundred metres above the land. This view is reinforced by Section 76 of Civil Aviation Act [1982] in which it states that it is not trespass if the aircraft is flying at a reasonable height.

---
No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with
---

The civil tort of trespass provides that a person’s property (and this is the statutory definition as ‘The statutory definition of land under section 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925 includes “land of any tenure, and mines and minerals … buildings or parts of buildings and other corporeal hereditaments; also … incorporeal hereditaments and an easement right privilege or benefit in over [my emphasis] or derived from land.

“In plain English, ‘land’ means physical property (such as the soil and buildings which stand on it), as well as property which is intangible. This includes easements, ie. rights of way over someone else’s land as well as airspace above the land [my emphasis].”

Airspace is then further split in to the lower and higher stratum and in respect of the lower stratum ‘This is the airspace immediately above/around the land. Interference with this air space would affect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. You can prevent people from interfering with or intruding on this airspace [my emphasis]. For instance, projecting eaves or advertising signs, and tower cranes being used for construction work on neighbouring land but which swing across your airspace.’

The higher stratum is thus ‘This is the airspace which exists above the height which is reasonably acceptable and necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land by its owner – around 500 to 1000 feet above roof space level (Section 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982). Landowners have no greater rights to this airspace than any other member of the public.’.

So, even the lower altitude that many be considered the lower stratum, at 500’, is above that at which we are permitted to fly our drones.

It is therefore my conclusion that under the civil tort of trespass a landowner can absolutely forbid a drone pilot to overfly their land regardless of where the pilot is sited to pilot the drone but that this is very much a matter for the civil courts and any enforcement would be via the civil route in exactly the same way that a landowner would enforce rights of access to their grounds. Thus it is strictly inaccurate to say that a landowner does not ‘own’ the airspace above their property assuming that ownership is limited to the lower stratum.

However, when discussing this point with a fellow pilot they advised they had raised the same query with the CAA and had received the following reply:

"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".

This seems at odds with the above statutory definition of property and also suggests that the tort of trespass can be ignored by drone pilots and that they cannot face any action from overflying private land even when the landowner has expressly forbade it. Is the case or does your response above only apply to the criminal law aspect of the drone regulations and the civil side is as I interpret it to be above?

Many thanks for your time and all the best for the new year.

Regards

 

[FoxhallGH]

Yes - this will be an interesting one to see the response to ... Well done @dannybgoode

 

[dannybgoode]

Yes - this will be an interesting one to see the response to ... Well done @dannybgoode

Thank you. I’ve tried to put it so that I get a response one way or the other but I suspect I will still somehow get an ambiguous reply!!

 

[FoxhallGH]

Thank you. I’ve tried to put it so that I get a response one way or the other but I suspect I will still somehow get an ambiguous reply!!

'fingers crossed' emoticon x 10 ....

 

[Manty]

Danny. From Civil Aviation Act 1982 Sect 76 (1)
No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....
Any help?

 

[dannybgoode]

Danny. From Civil Aviation Act 1982 Sect 76 (1)
No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....
Any help?

The bit open to interpretation hence the reliance on the definition of upper and lower stratum is this bit

...at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight...

The height above ground has to be a certain altitude to avoid the flight being trespass or private nuisance as per the opening line.

So even the Act says it is not trespass so long as it is above a certain, slightly vague, altitude. By inference, below a certain altitude it is trespass.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Danny. From Civil Aviation Act 1982 Sect 76 (1)
No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....
Any help?

It sounds like this means that if you are transiting airspace over a property, because you were wanting to get from 'A' to 'B', and you were doing it at such a height that was determined by e.g. regulation (120 m), or weather (it's windy, so I kept it down to 40 metres) - and you didn't loiter (which could suggest 'looking around with the camera' = privacy issues) - then you'd be OK - as long as you were below 120 m above ground, and more than 1 Km from an airport boundary ... (I'm assuming the rest of the Drone Code - e.g. 50 metres from houses & people - is 'advisory' at this time - not Law - correct??). Does that sound right from a practical point of view??

 

[dannybgoode]

Bear is in mind the Act was passed in 1982 and still doesn’t address the statutory definition of ‘property’ in which it is clear you own an amount of airspace.

Note also I did specifically raise section 76 in n my email to them so hopefully they’ll respond with something useful.

 

[Manty]

Taken from airspace restrictions from the CAA.
Drones should be flown at a height over the property of another person which is ‘reasonable’ in all circumstances. Failure to do so could amount to trespass if the flight interferes with another person’s ordinary use and enjoyment of land and the structures upon it.
BUT no heights mentioned. Seems they leave it to the individual to fly sensible heights. Ordinary use and enjoyment of land could mean anything!

 

[FoxhallGH]

Taken from airspace restrictions from the CAA.
Drones should be flown at a height over the property of another person which is ‘reasonable’ in all circumstances. Failure to do so could amount to trespass if the flight interferes with another person’s ordinary use and enjoyment of land and the structures upon it.
BUT no heights mentioned. Seems they leave it to the individual to fly sensible heights. Ordinary use and enjoyment of land could mean anything!

Seems to me that this means that ... If you are loitering in airspace above somebody's property, without a good excuse - then you are going to get the owner asking questions and being a bit miffed - with the legals on their side! However, if you are transiting the property above 50 metres and don't hang around, then you are 100% in the right (even if the owner is still miffed!) - but the legals are now on your side ...

 

[Manty]

I think you are right. Fly the drone code and I think you will be ok.
I see you are in Suffolk, me too.

 

[Jerry]

Rules will evolve over time, however, I don’t think trespass is a criminal offence on land currently, in the uk. However a trespasser can be asked to leave. Trespass laws are currently land based. Some places ie railways, trespass is an offence. The code is biased against drones and more liberal towards rc helicopters and fixed wing. Unfortunately I guess things will become worst for us before they get better.

 

[Jerry]

https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/GN10-17 Drones and Private Property 2017.pdf ... interesting read

 

[Manty]

https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/GN10-17 Drones and Private Property 2017.pdf ... interesting read

Yes indeed. It acknowledges the drone code but also mention the word and "assumptions" also mentioned in the above posts is the word "inference". I am sure neither has any legal standing. I am sure we will be registering all drones soon ( that will still not stop the idiots), and the distance from airfields increased to 5K. Third party insurance might be a requisite too for all drone operators. ( I think most serious hobbyists will already have that). hopefully nothing more drastic!!!!!

 

[dannybgoode]

https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/GN10-17 Drones and Private Property 2017.pdf ... interesting read

The main issue with this analysis and some of the points above are that they ignore the statutory definition of property which includes ownership of the lower stratum of airspace. Whilst the altitude of the lower stratum is not defined it is at least to 500' so above that which we can fly. My email as posted earlier to the CAA has the statutory definitions in there.

Therefore it is trespass to fly over private land regardless of where the pilot is sited, particularly if the landowner has forbidden drones from their property.

As @FoxhallGH correctly points out though this is a civil, not criminal matter so there is no power of arrest etc (although if the landowner were chummy with the local plod - not inconceivable - they may come up with some breach of the peace type charge) but if you were faced with civil action it would bleed the average person dry. I very nearly ended up in a civil dispute (not drone related) and my solicitor asked straight up whether I could afford at least £30k in legal bills.

Some protesters in Sheffield have been found to breach a private injunction and their legal bills combined, plus the other side's costs are in excess of £100,000. The MD where I used to work got involved in a spat over 3m2 of land and ended up with legl bills near £200k and had to sell his house. It is not therefore something that we can just ignore completely although usually if you just move along when sked you should be fine. But, if you did ignore it and you got a civil summons be prepared to empty the piggy bank.

I am still waiting for a response from the CAA and will of course post it up if and when I get one.

 

[Manty]

The main issue with this analysis and some of the points above are that they ignore the statutory definition of property which includes ownership of the lower stratum of airspace. Whilst the altitude of the lower stratum is not defined it is at least to 500' so above that which we can fly. My email as posted earlier to the CAA has the statutory definitions in there.

Therefore it is trespass to fly over private land regardless of where the pilot is sited, particularly if the landowner has forbidden drones from their property.

As @FoxhallGH correctly points out though this is a civil, not criminal matter so there is no power of arrest etc (although if the landowner were chummy with the local plod - not inconceivable - they may come up with some breach of the peace type charge) but if you were faced with civil action it would bleed the average person dry. I very nearly ended up in a civil dispute (not drone related) and my solicitor asked straight up whether I could afford at least £30k in legal bills.

Some protesters in Sheffield have been found to breach a private injunction and their legal bills combined, plus the other side's costs are in excess of £100,000. The MD where I used to work got involved in a spat over 3m2 of land and ended up with legl bills near £200k and had to sell his house. It is not therefore something that we can just ignore completely although usually if you just move along when sked you should be fine. But, if you did ignore it and you got a civil summons be prepared to empty the piggy bank.

I am still waiting for a response from the CAA and will of course post it up if and when I get one.

Guess you are not about to get a reply!!!!!!!!

 

[dannybgoode]

Apologies for the delay in updating this. The CAA finally came back to me the other day. As I suspected they confirm the regs but have decided they can’t comment on the other areas of law.

Kind of where we were then but they certainly are not repeating their claim that landowners can’t invoke civil law. Back to Rule #1 - Don’t be a knob

Thank you for your email and apologies for the delayed response. Your email was forwarded to our legal department who have stated the following:

‘As you are aware, the ANO provides that small unmanned surveillance aircraft must remain 50 metres from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the operator or remote pilot, this is covered by article 95(2)(c). Additionally without a Permission from the CAA operators cannot fly within 150m of a congested area.

Failure to adhere to these distances (or such distances as the CAA may have provided in permissions or exemptions) or other requirements of the ANO may constitute a criminal offence.

Unfortunately, the CAA cannot provide legal advice with respect to the law of trespass or other aspects of private law’.