Legal position for drone users in areas of the UK like @NationaTrust and Councils

[Paul WIngfield]

The @NationalTrust has banned drones from flying anywhere on their land in the UK. So while they can't accept someone trying to take a beautiful aerial landscape photograph, they are prepared to go against 85% of the UK population and permit fox hunting where the dogs have a tendency to rip apart all manner of wildlife (not just foxes).

Banning drones and threatening to charge licence fees are becoming common threats by Councils in the UK. However, surely as there is no national law or CAA requirement, they can't enforce this, can they? Is there a legal advice platform for drone users that we might be able to use collectively? It should be of interest to all of us but especially DJI and other manufacturers.

 

[dannybgoode]

The @NationalTrust has banned drones from flying anywhere on their land in the UK. So while they can't accept someone trying to take a beautiful aerial landscape photograph, they are prepared to go against 85% of the UK population and permit fox hunting where the dogs have a tendency to rip apart all manner of wildlife (not just foxes).

Banning drones and threatening to charge licence fees are becoming common threats by Councils in the UK. However, surely as there is no national law or CAA requirement, they can't enforce this, can they? Is there a legal advice platform for drone users that we might be able to use collectively? It should be of interest to all of us but especially DJI and other manufacturers.

Let me link to a thread that discusses this in detail. I have raised the question with the CAA but as things stand and as I understand it there is nothing under criminal law they can do but under civil law they have every right.

The key is how civil laws are enforced which is through a costly legal route (usually costly for both parties).

 

[dannybgoode]

Detailed National Trust property NFZ map

 

[Thwyllo]

They don't own the airspace so they cannot prevent you overflying, period. And while they can politely ask you to leave the site if they find your drone taking off from "their" property, they have no recourse in law to do anything else. They could sue in theory but for what? No loss or damage will have occurred so they are not entitled to any compensation. It's all pi55 and wind.

 

[dannybgoode]

They don't own the airspace so they cannot prevent you overflying, period. And while they can politely ask you to leave the site if they find your drone taking off from "their" property, they have no recourse in law to do anything else. They could sue in theory but for what? No loss or damage will have occurred so they are not entitled to any compensation. It's all pi55 and wind.

They do own the airspace up to 500-1000' though as per the statutory definition of property. See the post I linked to and in particular the email I have sent to the CAA for full details of the relevant laws and torts.

 

[Thwyllo]

They do own the airspace up to 500-1000' though as per the statutory definition of property. See the post I linked to and in particular the email I have sent to the CAA for full details of the relevant laws and torts.

Not quite, they have very limited rights up to 500' and only insofar as any intrusion causes "interference with this air space would affect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land". Pretty hard to prove in the case of the NT...above 500' they have no more rights than any other member of the public.

But more to the point their remedies in law are extremely limited if not actually non-existent. It's a bit like trespass...you can be asked to leave but you can rightfully refuse and there is no further action that can be taken. Police can only remove trespassers when their numbers exceed a certain level. (With off-road vehicles for example I think it's five or more vehicles if my memory serves me right). It's why travellers can't normally be removed without a court order. Better to be pragmatic here than pedantic IMHO.

 

[dannybgoode]

Not quite, they have very limited rights up to 500' and only insofar as any intrusion causes "interference with this air space would affect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land". Pretty hard to prove in the case of the NT...above 500' they have no more rights than any other member of the public.

But more to the point their remedies in law are extremely limited if not actually non-existent. It's a bit like trespass...you can be asked to leave but you can rightfully refuse and there is no further action that can be taken. Police can only remove trespassers when their numbers exceed a certain level. (With off-road vehicles for example I think it's five or more vehicles if my memory serves me right). It's why travellers can't normally be removed without a court order. Better to be pragmatic here than pedantic IMHO.

I largely agree but they can forbid drone flying and if you breach that it is trespass. The reason for me pointing it out isn’t to ge pedantic but simply to correct the misunderstanding that they cannot do this - they can. The reasonable enjoyment you are quoting is from the Civil Aviation Act and again ignores the fact that landowners do own the airspace. This is clearly defined in law. Their rights are accordingly exactly the same as they are for their land with exactly the same remedies.

Absolutely though the key is enforcement but if you were to persistently trespass at a location they could take an injunction out against you (wouldn’t put it passed the NT to do so either, they can be quite bolshy about such things) or if they perceived there to be a larger problem with drones they could try to obtain a broader injunction against drone pilots fullstop rather than an individual. Breach an injunction and you are then committing a criminal offence.

My take in things is entirely pragmatic. Fly sensibly, be respectful of the reasons why flying may be forbidden in certain sensitive flights and don’t be a knob. If you’re asked to move on; nod, smile and pack up & go. Nothing would inflame the situation quicker than someone trying to argue the NT (for example) didn’t have a leg to stand on. It would be this kind of thing that would goad them into taking action - they have form in doing so!

As and when the CAA respond to me I'll post an update...

 

[John Dakin]

I largely agree but they can forbid drone flying and if you breach that it is trespass. The reason for me pointing it out isn’t to ge pedantic but simply to correct the misunderstanding that they cannot do this - they can. The reasonable enjoyment you are quoting is from the Civil Aviation Act and again ignores the fact that landowners do own the airspace. This is clearly defined in law. Their rights are accordingly exactly the same as they are for their land with exactly the same remedies.

Absolutely though the key is enforcement but if you were to persistently trespass at a location they could take an injunction out against you (wouldn’t put it passed the NT to do so either, they can be quite bolshy about such things) or if they perceived there to be a larger problem with drones they could try to obtain a broader injunction against drone pilots fullstop rather than an individual. Breach an injunction and you are then committing a criminal offence.

My take in things is entirely pragmatic. Fly sensibly, be respectful of the reasons why flying may be forbidden in certain sensitive flights and don’t be a knob. If you’re asked to move on; nod, smile and pack up & go. Nothing would inflame the situation quicker than someone trying to argue the NT (for example) didn’t have a leg to stand on. It would be this kind of thing that would goad them into taking action - they have form in doing so!

As and when the CAA respond to me I'll post an update...

 

[John Dakin]

Living and working as a freelance pro cameraman in the West Country as I do, I frequently film on the coastlines of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset. As always, a great hindrance to a cameraman getting the shots he needs - is the element of human beings getting into shots, where you don't want them. I solve this problem in the main by waiting for Summer months, and getting out of bed early - 4 am There are seldom any human beings around, anywhere, official or otherwise. Weather permitting - Problem solved !

 

[IanChap]

I was wondering about this also.

I'm in the West Country too, where the NT's main ownership is moorland and coastline, (sometimes combined!), rather than stately homes etc as I think people in most of the UK know them for.

Personally I respect and understand their rules around stately homes etc, but in wilder areas with extremely few people about, I don't believe it's doing any harm whatsoever. Having said that, I wouldn't launch right in front of an NT ranger!

 

[The Fat Controller]

Living and working as a freelance pro cameraman in the West Country as I do, I frequently film on the coastlines of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset. As always, a great hindrance to a cameraman getting the shots he needs - is the element of human beings getting into shots, where you don't want them. I solve this problem in the main by waiting for Summer months, and getting out of bed early - 4 am There are seldom any human beings around, anywhere, official or otherwise. Weather permitting - Problem solved !

Some great shots available at 4am. I was fortunate (?) for many years to have a job with a 3am start and which also involved travelling around the country. You've no need for a ND filter to remove tourists from your photos at that time of the morning.