Drones over Nat Trust properties

[wheelman1uk]

I have been a drone flyer for about 4 years, a fixed wing model flyer for 25 years and a National Trust member for 40 years.
At the moment all National Trust properties in the UK are closed However from Wednesday of this week the grounds of certain poperties have been open to walk around. Today I visited a small property in Shropshire. The carpark was open but no cars parked. The access road to the property is public but a no through road. After making sure that I was most unlikely to be flying over anyone I took off from the roadway and spent about 4 minutes videoing the front of the building.
I was alerted to some shouting and a person emerged from behind me screaming at me to get out as he was about to call the police. I asked him who he was but he refused to answer but I spotted that he had a National Trust body warmer and as his boots were muddy I sumised he was the gardener. Before I could engage him in any conversation he was trying to call the police. At no point did he ask for my name or address. I asked if I could speak to the police to clarify the situation which he refused. He then instructed a junior gardener who had appeared to take my car number which I gave him to save him the trouble.
He claimed that it is illegal to fly a drone over National Trust I tried to point out that the National Trust's own bye-laws are unclear as the legal position is still to be clarified.
I didn't bother to tell him that for I had been a Nat Trust member for over forty years and for most of my working life l was a Contracts Manager for company who's main work was repair and maintenance of Nat Trust properties.
Beware of agressive men in muddy boots

 

[zocalo]

While the NT's byelaws are vague (probably by design since they are stretching what they actually say considerably), the CAA is very clear on this. It is absolutely NOT illegal to fly over NT land, provided that you adhere to the drone code while doing so and operated your flight entirely from public land or that of a landowner that you have permission to fly from. It's not entirely clear from your description whether the access road you operated on was part of the NT property or not though, depending on whether you meant it was a "public highway" or just "freely accessible by the public". That's a very important distinction.

As a landowner, the NT is absolutely entirely to set certainly restrictions on what you can do while actually on their land, and that does include banning the operation of drones without permission. They could also, if they wanted to, bring a civil suit against someone operating a flight over their land under various civil torts like trespass, disturbance of the peace, invasion of privacy. That's where it gets as messy, and the outcome would depend very much on how the judge interpreted the specifics of the flight against the nature of the complaint. Assuming the flight was operated from public land and in compliance with the Drone Code, I'd say that the chances are pretty high that the NT would lose, in the process setting a precedent they absolutely don't want to set.

Hopefully there will be some clarity from the NT on this soon. The underlying points they use to support their blanket ban is that most drone pilots are generally unregistered and have not do not hold any form of certification - neither of which is entirely true anymore since UK pilots are now required to be registered with the CAA and pass a competency test. They are absolutely aware of this fact, and have been for many months now. If not, then I suspect this is going to come to a head in court sooner rather than later, although I suspect very few pilots are in any great rush to be the one that has the expense and inconvenience of setting the precedent.

 

[THE CYBORG]

I was also told not to fly on NT land, I don't know if the man was official or not but he was polite and he just told me that the National Trust have a blanket ban on drones.
I apologised told him I thought I was on National Park land then landed and left.

Apparently they have a different policy than National Parks as they say it’s OK.
Afterwerds I contacted The National Trust and they confirmed they blanket ban on drones, reasons given – Possible damage to buildings & Possible injury to people.

 

[Gkinghrn]

tbh I think its fair enough for the NT to prohibit drones from their land . even flying over their land in my view . Yes i'd lovde to film some fo these wonderful places but equally I dont want the air to be swarming with drones (exageration but you know what I mean) ....

The attitude of the guy who approached you seems more to be the issue though and I understand that.... a quiet and polite word from him would have done no harm

 

[DomDeV]

Yep, NT don't allow you to fly from their land, but they don't control the air, the CAA do.

Unfortunately, NT staff don't know/communicate the difference in rules, so always expect vocal grief flying over NT land....

 

[gnirtS]

. Before I could engage him in any conversation he was trying to call the police. At no point did he ask for my name or address. I asked if I could speak to the police to clarify the situation which he refused. He then instructed a junior gardener who had appeared to take my car number which I gave him to save him the trouble.
He claimed that it is illegal to fly a drone over National Trust I tried to point out that the National Trust's own bye-laws are unclear as the legal position is still to be clarified.

Basically he's lying on most counts. Let him call the police, if they attend he'll get reminded of this.

The actual bye-laws are here:- https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/documents/the-national-trust-byelaws-1965.pdf

Yes last updated 1965. Ive had it confirmed by NT themselves these ARE the latest bye-laws. If anyone wants me to forward that email im happy to. (or email themselves, took about a week to get a reply).

The clauses they try to use are:-

Hawking 17. No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph.

This is the clause they used a few years ago to persecute and threaten photographers on Flickr who had (non commercial) photos of Whityby abby taken from public land.

The other they try to use is this:-

Driving, Parking and Mooring of Conveyances 11.
(a) No unauthorised person shall:
(i) Moor, park or leave on Trust Property any conveyance except in mooring sites or parking places provided by the National Trust.
(ii) Leave any conveyance between sunset and sunrise in any parking place on Trust Property.
(iii) Ride or drive any conveyance over or upon Trust Property otherwise than upon roads, tracks and waterways authorised for the use of such conveyance.
(iv) Use any part of Trust Property in connection with any race, hill climb, rally, regatta, or other similar function involving the use of any conveyance. (b) No person shall ride or drive any conveyance to the danger or annoyance of or without due consideration for other persons resorting to Trust Property.
Note: In this Byelaw “conveyance” includes any air, land or watercraft vehicle or machine other than wheelchairs and perambulators. Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) shall have no application to pedal cycles.

So basically, at a stretch that can be used to prohibit operation/landing/takeoff from their property. It CANNOT be used to prevent overflight though and this has been confirmed by the CAA in writing (IanInLondon on youtube, hes on here too somewhere actually had the mail).

Incidentally:-

Penalties for Infringement of Byelaws 26. Every person who shall offend against any, of the foregoing Byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding £2 for each day during which the offence continues, or such other maximum as may be specified from time to time by any Act of Parliament enacted after the date hereof.

A bargain, its cheaper than a permit !

So if you're flying from NT property they can ask you to stop and leave. Fair enough, its private property.
If youre flying OVER NT property but not operating from it, they can do nothing as the CAA has confirmed. Just obey the dronecode as that IS a police matter otherwise.

Its worth keeping a copy of he bye-laws and CAA text with you because if the jobsworth does insist you can show them or if they are insane enough to call the police, show them both clearly.

If they do start doing things like taking car numbers and so on, film them. Id suggest filming every encounter as evidence regardless. If they cross a limit mention harassment and welcome them to call the police.
If a junior gardener is taking your car number and ask him for details ask them to show their GDPR compliance policy and procedure and if not, remind them they're breaking the law.

Its worth noting that in lots of NT land there are public or privately owned tracks, roads and fields cutting through these you can operate from and its worth researching these before going.

Follow the history of our places with Land Map <-- this map although not their intention is pretty good for working out where to fly a drone in the middle of their land. (or if its coastal, go below the high tide line etc.)

Ultimately they make a series of untrue claims which probably contravene law themselves (claiming its illegal to overly NT land etc) and it'd be nice to see this challenged one day.

NT is a huge problem in the UK due to the amount of land they've managed to gobble up - they own a huge percentage of the UKs coastline and inland areas now. They're certainly not a charity!
They're also sadly, one of the most anti-photographer, anti-drone and petty organisations in the country. Although they also make a huge chunk of money from insane car parking fees and fines.

 

[gnirtS]

Hopefully there will be some clarity from the NT on this soon.

That's extremely unlikely, they know legally they havent got a leg to stand on so will continue to hide behind the "its all new and vague" just as they have done for many years. Clarity means they'd lose - they want to ban drones overhead, they cant but wont want to ever admit this.

From their website:-

Few non-commercial users have the correct training or permission to operate drones

This is an outright lie both before and after registration. Under the old scheme permission was granted by the government to operate within the limits of the ANO/CAP. So by default everyone DID have permission to operate drones.
Under the new scheme with online test and registration they STILL have permision to operate drones.
So its a lie and always has been.

Should a drone cause damage or harm, pilots generally do not have the correct insurances to compensate the Trust for remedial actions.

Again thats the individuals responsibility, insurance is not a legal requirement. They also have to work out how someone crashing a drone into a hedgerow is going to cause so much damage only an insurance company could pay for.
Liability insurance operating FROM their property is fine, id agree with that. But a drone in the sky is not ON their property legally.

Drones should not be flown over people; as much of our land is open access we cannot guarantee an area, even if remote, is completely empty.

Also a lie. The CAP states what can and cant be done regarding people, crowds, distances and so on. That isnt their responsibility or remit. An area does not HAVE to be "completely empty" as the CAP clearly states. That aside, most of their land IS completely empty! Literally 2 or 3 people per square kilometre and thats on a busy day in some NPs or coastal areas.
Enforcement of the CAP is the remit of the police and CAA not the NT.

Drones should not flown near property; the special nature of our properties makes the risk of damage more severe.

As above, permission has been granted within the limits of the ANO and its not their remit.

Much of the wildlife use our sites for breeding and are sensitive to disturbance and some species are given additonal protection that can result in prosecution if photographed in certain situations. Many birds see drones as a threat and may abandon nests.

Fair enough, its already illegal to disturb those though so again not their remit. The UK has many SSSIs and yes a responsible drone user will check and obtain clearance before risking it.
If they dont there are laws to deal with them already. So again its a pointless catch-all statement.
They also provide no evidence for "many birds" seeing drones as a threat and ababdoning nests. An average sparrow 80m in the air is not going to suddenly abandon its nest.
For vulnerable wildlife rules exist for protection already so again not NTs issue. If they have a special case to protect, publish it and enforce it through existing channels. But the fact is in MOST of their land no such areas exist.

Many drones have cameras attached and these could infringe data protection laws (filming people without permission) and potentially could contravene National Trust rules on photography and filming

Again not their responsibility. Data protect laws are not their remit and already exist and drone users are no different to anyone else regarding this.
If its not ON their land they have no power to say no. No different to someone with a Pixel XL phone or a 100-400 telephoto lens on a big DSLR (which oddly they seem ok with...).

The presence of drones can be detrimental to the enjoyment of our sites by other visitors.

"Can be". So can dogs running around barking, screaming babies, petrol lawnmowers, hang-gliders and so on. There is already a bye-law against this so just use it. Drones are not a different case.

We therefore do not allow drone flying from or over National Trust land.

.

And here it is. The first part is fine, its their right. The second is something that cannot legally prevent but try to mislead into thinking they can.

The regulatory environment regarding drones is rapidly developing. We will continue to monitor this development and keep our position under constant review.

Constant review that 6 years after that webpage went live it hasnt once been updated....

 

[zocalo]

@gnirtS

100% in agreement on this. They are absolutely twisting and stretching things to the limit to get what they want, but in the process have ended up with a position that is so confused and inconsistent that any half-competent lawyer should be able to rip them to pieces if a case did come to civil court. *Provided* that is, that the flight was in full compliance with the ANO, which for many smaller properties would likely mean that a flight would not be possible anyway due to either proximity to buildings or uninvolved people. That's the problem though - many flights are not in full compliance with the ANO, and if that can be proven in court then the NT will get some precendent that they can then twist and stretch to seemingly support their position and making harder for the next case.

Anyway, as I've noted previously, the CAA's new registration and training requirement does change things considerably, and the full adoption of EASA regs changes things even further - both in favour of legally compliant drone pilots wishing to operate their aircraft in accordance with the ANO. In my view, the best strategy is hold fire until the EASA regs come in to provide some legal stability (currently November 2020) and see whether the NT change their position with new guidance for 2021. I think that unlikely, but the timing is then setup quite nicely for UK pilots that are NT members to acquire the necessary signatures (50) to raise a realistic compromise - e.g. being able to operate from and over the NT's vast tracts of open countryside provided the flight is ANO compliant - for a vote at the 2021 AGM.

I doubt it'll pass (too many NIMBYs and too much anti-drone FUD in the media they tend to read), but you never know, and at the very least it'll get it on record just how many legal flaws there are in their position and force the NT to make a statement (or try to, anyway) to support their position on how members should vote.

 

[gnirtS]

*Provided* that is, that the flight was in full compliance with the ANO, which for many smaller properties would likely mean that a flight would not be possible anyway due to either proximity to buildings or uninvolved people.

This again though is a problem but its not NTs to police. If they believe the ANO is violated its a police action. It applies everywhere not just to NT so again not their remit. Id guess a big chunk of *all* drone flights in the UK arent compliant in one way or another.

One thing DJI does by default which is useful IF you're following the rules is it logs flights. If you're compliant then its utterly trivial to prove it by showing them the logs.

Its fairly easy to comply over most NT land given the number of private/public tracks/fields/beaches which is why the map is handy. Those areas also have a very low density of people, buildings or anything else.

I doubt it'll pass (too many NIMBYs and too much anti-drone FUD in the media they tend to read), but you never know, and at the very least it'll get it on record just how many legal flaws there are in their position and force the NT to make a statement (or try to, anyway) to support their position on how members should vote.

Theres no way NT will approve it for reasons you give. FWIW i took the opposite and no longer give them money. I'll park outside/away from their car parks, i wont ever donate any more nor do i visit any of their properties.

Its not just antidrone FWIW - its the anti camera and money grabbing in general. The way they persecute and issue threats to phoographers for stuff on flickr (from public land), aggressively demand all photos of thousands of years old natural landscapes and cliffs removed from media and stock sites because its "theirs" and so on.
The drone thing is a continuation of that - they'll sell you their own images but a *lot* of money.

 

[zocalo]

This again though is a problem but its not NTs to police. If they believe the ANO is violated its a police action. It applies everywhere not just to NT so again not their remit. Id guess a big chunk of *all* drone flights in the UK arent compliant in one way or another.

One thing DJI does by default which is useful IF you're following the rules is it logs flights. If you're compliant then its utterly trivial to prove it by showing them the logs.

Its fairly easy to comply over most NT land given the number of private/public tracks/fields/beaches which is why the map is handy. Those areas also have a very low density of people, buildings or anything else.

Not to police, but it would almost certainly be the NT that raises the complaint as it's going to be a rare pilot that will want to get the police and/or CAA involved if they have knowingly breached the ANO. Since their on-site staff are often so clueless of the actual laws it's also entirely possible they might go for a civil suit by default, even if they could just refer an actual illegal flight to the police and CAA.

That it is so easy to legally overfly most applicable NT land (to the limits of VLOS at least) is what makes it all but inevitable that it's just a matter of time before a pilot decides to stand their ground and things escalate to the point that it ends up going to court. As you say, a copy of the ANO and DJI flight logs, would readily enable them to prove their case, but that doesn't neccessarily make it trivial and cheap for them to do so. I'd quite happily chip in to a GoFundMe or similar for a fellow pilot in that situation but, like most pilots I suspect, I'd rather not be the one actually in court, so a token protest then packing up and moving on is generally the simplest solution.

Theres no way NT will approve it for reasons you give.

To be clear, it's not the NT "management" that gets to decide on AGM issues raised by members in this way, it's the entire membership that gets to vote (including postal/online - attendance at the AGM itself is not required).

Yes, I think it'll fail, but it does put them into the position of having to formally defined their position. That's going to be incredibly tough for them to do in a plausible manner if the proposal is put together sufficiently well, e.g. pointing out all the actual legalities and making realistic concessions on things like formal grounds and lambing seasons. Either way, it should force them into a tighter corner than they present currently, which should make it easier for anyone in a court case to prevail against them.

 

[Hiwayman]

I've followed the NT issues for a while, and whilst I believe I 'get' the issues discussed, what I am not clear about is why we need Natural England to consent to a flight 400' above a sssi ..... What is the difference please ?

 

[gnirtS]

SSSIs vary massively in whats there.

If its exotic moss growing on some rocks then clearly there's no issue with a drone causing disturbance. If its nesting birds who are protected, seasonal, rare and so on there's far more of a potential disturbance issue.
Most people generally have no idea what exactly is in each SSSI so checking with them before a flight would seem to make sense. (Unlike NT, NRW/NE etc have granted permission when asked nicely to people). Even 400ft can potentially spook certain birds into abandoning young if overhead. A drone can be clearly seen and heard at that distance.

 

[Hiwayman]

SSSIs vary massively in whats there.

If its exotic moss growing on some rocks then clearly there's no issue with a drone causing disturbance. If its nesting birds who are protected, seasonal, rare and so on there's far more of a potential disturbance issue.
Most people generally have no idea what exactly is in each SSSI so checking with them before a flight would seem to make sense. (Unlike NT, NRW/NE etc have granted permission when asked nicely to people). Even 400ft can potentially spook certain birds into abandoning young if overhead. A drone can be clearly seen and heard at that distance.

It must depend on who replies...on the one application I have made I was told that the application had to be from the landowner, not the drone pilot... eventually got sorted as the sssi was not for birdlife...but it took a while

 

[zocalo]

It must depend on who replies...on the one application I have made I was told that the application had to be from the landowner, not the drone pilot... eventually got sorted as the sssi was not for birdlife...but it took a while ☹

Yeah, it's a crap shoot. It helps if you have done your homework and know the reason for the SSSI prior to making the request (or just not bothering, if it turns out to be rare birds and you are in the middle of nesting season). I tend to agree with your assessment - it's down to who you get - but if you can make life easier for them and save them having to look up the reason(s) for the designation then they're more likely to say "yes". If you can plan ahead and give them plenty of time to respond to an email that includes details of what you intend to do and why going is likely to be helpful as well.

The UK badly needs a co-ordinated system like the US's LAANC to cover things like this, IMHO.