For UK pilots, especially in East Devon: New drone rules issued by East Devon District Council

[MavicMikeMinh]

Guys, I'm keen to hear some comments from fellow pilots in East Devon (United Kingdom).


East Devon District Council (EDDC) has published new rules for drone flying from land owned by EDDC.

They don't seem to differentiate between hobby and commercial flights, at least not clearly. I quote a few bits below, the full six page long document is here:
Drone Policy - East Devon

QUOTE

The law stipulates that any drone may only be flown from and over land for which the land owner has given written permission. Drones may not be flown from or above council land without first obtaining written permission from East Devon District Council.​

… …​

You will be required to submit the following information for us in order to consider granting permission for drone flights over council owned land:-​

1. A description of the purpose of the flight(s).​

2. A copy of your public liability insurance certificate (with provides cover for a minimum of £10,000,000 in respect of any one claim).​

3. A copy of your flight plan including specified launch and landing points.​

4. A copy of the site assessment.​

5. A copy of your CAA issued Permission for Commercial Operation (PfCO) document.​

… …​

Upon receipt of these documents, consideration and approval/rejection will be given within 10 working days. At this point the fee for commercial photography / filming / other drone activity of £200.00 will be due before final permission is granted.​

UNQUOTE

A Freedom of Information request was made by somebody here:
Drone Policy (reported in several press articles as 'strict rules') - a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council
basically asking which law EDDC was referring to.

A newspaper article is here:
District council set out new drone rules

 

[The Editor]

Guys, I'm keen to hear some comments from fellow pilots in East Devon (United Kingdom).


East Devon District Council (EDDC) has published new rules for drone flying from land owned by EDDC.

They don't seem to differentiate between hobby and commercial flights, at least not clearly. I quote a few bits below, the full six page long document is here:
Drone Policy - East Devon

QUOTE

The law stipulates that any drone may only be flown from and over land for which the land owner has given written permission. Drones may not be flown from or above council land without first obtaining written permission from East Devon District Council.​

… …​

You will be required to submit the following information for us in order to consider granting permission for drone flights over council owned land:-​

1. A description of the purpose of the flight(s).​

2. A copy of your public liability insurance certificate (with provides cover for a minimum of £10,000,000 in respect of any one claim).​

3. A copy of your flight plan including specified launch and landing points.​

4. A copy of the site assessment.​

5. A copy of your CAA issued Permission for Commercial Operation (PfCO) document.​

… …​

Upon receipt of these documents, consideration and approval/rejection will be given within 10 working days. At this point the fee for commercial photography / filming / other drone activity of £200.00 will be due before final permission is granted.​

UNQUOTE

A Freedom of Information request was made by somebody here:
Drone Policy (reported in several press articles as 'strict rules') - a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council
basically asking which law EDDC was referring to.

A newspaper article is here:
District council set out new drone rules

Meaningless and they are wrong in their citing of 'the law'
Since the PfCO is effectively dead now, they are probably too stupid to rewrite it to accommodate the new legislations coming into effect in June.
Their 'rules' do not circumvent the Air Navigation Order.

 

[sar104]

Conspicuously missing seems to be any actual law to support that "policy". I particularly like the enforcement clause:

Enforcement: If any person/persons are found to be using a drone device from East Devon District Council land without a letter of permission they will be instructed to stop immediately.​

Instructed very sternly, no doubt.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

QUOTE
The law stipulates that any drone may only be flown from and over land for which the land owner has given written permission. Drones may not be flown from or above council land without first obtaining written permission from East Devon District Council.… …You will be required to submit the following information for us in order to consider granting permission for drone flights over council owned land:-1. A description of the purpose of the flight(s).2. A copy of your public liability insurance certificate (with provides cover for a minimum of £10,000,000 in respect of any one claim).3. A copy of your flight plan including specified launch and landing points.4. A copy of the site assessment.5. A copy of your CAA issued Permission for Commercial Operation (PfCO) document.… …Upon receipt of these documents, consideration and approval/rejection will be given within 10 working days. At this point the fee for commercial photography / filming / other drone activity of £200.00 will be due before final permission is granted.UNQUOTE

Well THAT'S a very authoritarian stance, just trying to ban drones outright through bureaucracy.
No overflight, £10,000,000 liability cover, and £200.00 permits for every flight ? Really, they are having it on.

It seems to be aimed at PfCO holders, but they still don't have higher or ANY authority over airspace than CAA.
The terrible thing is that even though a pilot has CAA ultimate airspace authority on their side, they would need to test this in a court, versus a local council with deep taxpayer filled pockets for lawyers.

I think a local MP would need to be coerced with the facts and become a voice to combat this sort of illegal declaration.
There have been posts similar in the forum for US cities too, some have been rescinded after legal opinion or court hearings.

One Western Australia council tried this a short time ago, they had to reverse the 'flight over' parts, but can still stop flight from on their land, thereby stopping take off or landing on the area (usually council controlled parkland).

Good luck with this, and keep us posted here with updates if / when they are noted.

 

[gnirtS]

The law stipulates that any drone may only be flown from and over land for which the land owner has given written permission.

The law certainly does NOT state you cannot fly over.

 

[MavicMikeMinh]

The law certainly does NOT state you cannot fly over.

I think this is the very point made in the FOI (Freedom of information) request mentioned in my OP.

There are other, rather strange elements in this:

• How many complaints from the public have they received? Complaining about what?
• How many cases of disturbance, accidents, liability claims against the council were made?
• What is council owned land? By means of rhetorical questions--> The beach, at low tide, at high tide? Every car park? Every road? Any bit of green in the district? The spot of waste land between two housing estates where everybody walks their dogs?
• This was published by a department "Place, Assets & Commercialisation". Why?
• The document's version says it is 'Adopted', there was no public consultation or anything else. Why?
• A typical drone insurance would cover £5 million, not 10. Am I right?

I will follow this up, and quite possibly will contact the local MP. Just need to collect a few well phrased arguments to support the case before I do. This is part of why I'm started this discussion.

As an aside, I find it amazing that somebody from Adelaide knows enough about how local British government is organised to give this kind of advice. Thanks, you were spot on.

The prize for the best comment so far goes to sar104

 

[Manty]

I think the law with respect to councils making by-laws states that any interested parties should be consulted. I would ask if that has been done and if so who were those parties?

 

[Manty]

“In carrying out the regulatory assessment, the local authority must consult such persons as it considers may be affected by the proposed byelaw – which may include persons who are not resident in the area of the authority. This is particularly important in relation to byelaws concerning parks and recreation grounds, where those visiting and using public facilities and therefore subject to the byelaws, if made, may not be local residents”

 

[sar104]

I think the law with respect to councils making by-laws states that any interested parties should be consulted. I would ask if that has been done and if so who were those parties?

But this doesn't appear to be a byelaw - just a "policy".

 

[Manty]

So is a policy legal? Especially when made by uninformed persons. I would write a letter questioning the validity of that policy and pointing out how bylaws are implemented.

 

[sar104]

So is a policy legal? Especially when made by uninformed persons. I would write a letter questioning the validity of that policy and pointing out how bylaws are implemented.

I imagine that it's perfectly legal to have a policy. And also perfectly illegal to ignore it.

 

[xspwhite]

£10,000,000 liability cover?

 

[The Fat Controller]

£10,000,000 liability cover?

They've been watching too many action movies. Drone hits a plane, plane crash lands on a motorway, cars scatter all directions, several end up on a railway, train derails lands in the middle of a village where major music festival and sports events are taking place. £10 million is just the deposit ? (Unless Bruce Willis manages to stop said drone owner before it all starts).

 

[gnirtS]

National Trust use the same deliberately misleading wording claiming "laws" and "bye-laws" prohibit overflight when on checking, they do no such thing.
NT and the councils rely on trying to scare people who don't know enough to check out the claim.

 

[bushie]

Well THAT'S a very authoritarian stance, just trying to ban drones outright through bureaucracy.
No overflight, £10,000,000 liability cover, and £200.00 permits for every flight ? Really, they are having it on.

It seems to be aimed at PfCO holders, but they still don't have higher or ANY authority over airspace than CAA.
The terrible thing is that even though a pilot has CAA ultimate airspace authority on their side, they would need to test this in a court, versus a local council with deep taxpayer filled pockets for lawyers.

I think a local MP would need to be coerced with the facts and become a voice to combat this sort of illegal declaration.
There have been posts similar in the forum for US cities too, some have been rescinded after legal opinion or court hearings.

One Western Australia council tried this a short time ago, they had to reverse the 'flight over' parts, but can still stop flight from on their land, thereby stopping take off or landing on the area (usually council controlled parkland).

Good luck with this, and keep us posted here with updates if / when they are noted.

Which WA council was this? Mandurah looked at this and had advise they did not have the power to do so.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Which WA council was this? Mandurah looked at this and had advise they did not have the power to do so.

As per other thread, it was your council (Mandurah), recall your previous posts on this.
Hope that flows on, will probably take a test case or two in court though, I feel.

 

[MavicMikeMinh]

I found another council, North Devon, with a somewhat similar sounding, albeit shorter, guideline, see here:
Drone filming from council land

There may be further councils. I begin to believe they copy each other.

I see now two possible scenarios:

A) Trying to do something against such a sweeping policy, getting the MP involved, pointing out false claims, the strangely high insurance requirements, the unfair application fees, etc. etc. Doing so puts me in the firing line. The council is not very likely to take criticism lightly. The respective council department will feel attacked.

B) Do nothing and rely on what they say about enforcement (i.e. asking the pilot to stop).

Option B) looks more appealing, it's after all not a bye-law, just a policy.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

There may be further councils. I begin to believe they copy each other.

This is likely.
We have a South Australian LGA (state local govco association), and they seem to be pushing these types of policy as a template, so many of our councils adopt them as a matter of course (lazy).
I see many written the same way, word for word.
There may even be a nation wide association here, not sure.

I suspect UK has an local govco association too . . . yes . . .

Local Government Association

We are the national voice of local government, working with councils to support, promote and improve

www.local.gov.uk

Nothing too negative in a search of their site for drone, UAV, model aircraft etc.
Maybe there is a bylaw (byelaw) section that has some para about it as a template.

It's a bit like the Worldwide ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), they have a big hand in all the new drafting of UAV regulations I'm sure.
Mostly western nations and those with more advanced airspace authorities are all adopting similar (if not identical) policies.

Home

www.icao.int

 

[Crispjon]

Conspicuously missing seems to be any actual law to support that "policy". I particularly like the enforcement clause:

Enforcement: If any person/persons are found to be using a drone device from East Devon District Council land without a letter of permission they will be instructed to stop immediately.​

Instructed very sternly, no doubt.

Yup this is what I noticed, pretty scary! or not. I emailed the council asking for a map of "their" land and asked what the situation was were the council rented out, say, a farm. Could the tenant give permission?
I fly over such a farm luckily not in East Devon.
Needless to say I have not had a reply so far. Next a mail to my Councillor then to my MP.

 

[Crispjon]

I also found this article from (i Assume) the Country Landowner Association.
https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/GN10-17 Drones and Private Property 2017.pdf

it casts doubt on the viability of a successful prosecution but may not be up to date.