Stopped by the Drone Police.

[zocalo]

Not sure about that, in the UK the National Parks don't own any land to speak of, other than perhaps some car parks and visitor centre if there is one.
The National Trust do own some tracts of land in the National Parks (but most is just normal private owners e.g. farmers ). As mentioned they have no jurisdiction to prevent you over-flying but they can reasonably ban taking off from their locations.

As you say, the National Parks are more administrative areas and are they don't actually own the bulk of the land other than their own offices and some car parks. Most of the land within National Parks is in the hands of either private landowners (including the National Trust) or the state.

The NT does own a *lot* of land, including large areas of some National Parks, but in many specific cases within National Parks it can just be a car park and a small surrounding area. In those instances, provided you don't take off from the car park or other NT land you're good to go, one great example of this being the White Cliffs of Dover where a strip of land at the top of the cliffs is owned by the NT, but the beach below is not. Take off from the beach, avoid the NT land and the Port of Dover, remain in compliance with the Drone Code and you're fine!

If in doubt, the NT does at least maintain a very accurate map of the land they own or just manage (where you may still be OK to fly), including overlays with additional info about the type, ownership, when it was bequeathed/bought, etc. Click on a given area for more info.

 

[4wd]

As you say, the National Parks are more administrative areas and are they don't actually own the bulk of the land other than their own offices and some car parks. Most of the land within National Parks is in the hands of either private landowners (including the National Trust) or the state.

The NT does own a *lot* of land, including large areas of some National Parks, but in many specific cases within National Parks it can just be a car park and a small surrounding area. In those instances, provided you don't take off from the car park or other NT land you're good to go, one great example of this being the White Cliffs of Dover where a strip of land at the top of the cliffs is owned by the NT, but the beach below is not. Take off from the beach, avoid the NT land and the Port of Dover, remain in compliance with the Drone Code and you're fine!

If in doubt, the NT does at least maintain a very accurate map of the land they own or just manage (where you may still be OK to fly), including overlays with additional info about the type, ownership, when it was bequeathed/bought, etc. Click on a given area for more info.

Yes that's quite good and there are some surprises, for example at Rievaulx (near me) they own the terrace and woodland above but not the area where the Abbey is which is English Heritage. Not that they are much different re. drones.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The NT stance on drones.

I would have thought they'd have reasonable spelling skills, "an existing byelaw" indeed.
Maybe a loophole, bye law, lol.

Just love they way the NT and others like local councils etc call these properties / landholdings 'our sites' or 'our land', I thought the people of a country in general were the ultimate owners of such assets.

in the UK the National Parks don't own any land to speak of, other than perhaps some car parks and visitor centre if there is one.

If it's a busy place and/or there is sensitive wildlife this is perfectly reasonable.
Out of season and out of hours you could probably discretely take some footage without any challenge.
Only what will you do with it, posted to youtube some out there seem to take delight in finding things to report!

If a place is well visited throughout the day, 7 days, then yes if CAA is like CASA here in Australia, you would possibly be breaking the official rules by flying over people . . . but even then with careful flight, shooting oblique from over an area to the side around such a place, you could get away with it from a legal CAA point of view.
You would have to watch the noise of course too and keep suitable distance to not be a 'nuisance' to others.
VLOS rules could come into play if a longer flight is needed to access such properties (take off point outside official land 'ownership').

But then you don't want to push you luck and risk some sort of intervention / legal action, it's both time consuming and costly. Always.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I would have thought they'd have reasonable spelling skills, "an existing byelaw" indeed.
Maybe a loophole, bye law, lol.

Byelaw is the UK spelling. That was easy enough to Google.

Just love they way the NT and others like local councils etc call these properties / landholdings 'our sites' or 'our land', I thought the people of a country in general were the ultimate owners of such assets.

I take "our land" to mean the country's land or the people's land.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Byelaw is the UK spelling. That was easy enough to Google.

Indeed you learn something every day !!
Strange as we have adopted pretty much the Queens English here, rather than your spelling idiosyncrasies.

Had a quick look myself, seems they are interchangable, but National Trust must use the olde world spelling . . .

bylaw
or bye·law
[bahy-law]
noun
a standing rule governing the regulation of a corporation's or society's internal affairs.
a subsidiary law.
British . an ordinance of a municipality or community.
ORIGIN OF BYLAW
1325–75; by- + law1; replacing Middle English bilawe, equivalent to by town (< Scandinavian; compare Danish by) + lawe law

I take "our land" to mean the country's land or the people's land.

No, with regards to that I'm sure they think it's the corporations.
Even councils here are not so much councils any longer, but 'City of *', that are more profit driven entities . . . but with mind boggling waste, noses in the trough, and plenty of 'nest feathering'.

Thanks for going to the trouble of Googling that, and for general info, how is it spelled in the US ?

 

[zocalo]

I take "our land" to mean the country's land or the people's land.

Actually, I take it more literally as a statement. They do, in most cases, actually own the land they run, so it is correct to say "our land", as in "The National Trust's Land". However, it is also meant to be implicit that they own it in trust for the people, so in the larger context I'd use your interpretation as well.

I do think their being a bit liberal with their interpretation of the CAA regs though as they gloss over the 50m/150m separation restrictions. Presumably that's because that would permit legal flights on much of the open countryside they own, but also opens them up to abuse by irresponsible fliers; it's got to be much easier for their staff to manage a blanket ban with no grey areas.

On the plus side, the NT does seem aware of the government consultation into drone use and I think it would be reasonable to assume they will take that on-board when it gets published. Presumably that will be over the summer, as the new drone registration requirement is supposed to be implemented and become mandatory by the end of October. I suspect they'll stick with the blanket ban on drones regardless, but whatever.

As an aside, they *do* have a process for changing things like this; a members resolution raised for a vote at the AGM, held in the last quarter of each year. It requires at least 50 signatures by existing NT members (who must have been a member for at least one year), five of which need to be proposers. Something to think about once the consultation results are out and the NT has had a chance to digest them, perhaps?

 

[Congoblue]

If I don't get permission (don't think I will )
I will post the final video when I can edit what I have so at least have something to show for all the travelling to and fro.

If I do you will have to wait a little longer because then its up to the sun.

Personally I would advise not posting/publishing the video if you do not have permission from them. As previously said the NT has past form for aggressively taking people to court in questionable circumstances and you would just be providing them with evidence. They do seem to have a desire to enforce their no-drone rules and you don't want to become a test case.

 

[THE CYBORG]

I see what you are saying Congoblue but after all that travelling it would be a shame not to share.
Nothing was mentioned concerning the footage I had already taken, they didn’t ask for me to delete it so I think I will run with it.
( After all I did take it long before they introduced the no drone rule didn’t I )

There are other Castlerigg stone circle video’s on YouTube.

 

[zocalo]

There are other Castlerigg stone circle video’s on YouTube.

Oh, I know that one. There's a lovely undulating ground that can really give some amazing shadow texture when the light is at the right angle. If it's still enough for reflections, then it can be worth trekking over to the nearby Tewet Tarn as well, if you're not familiar with it - although it can be quite muddy. You can sometimes park near the footpath entry on the road to St. Johns, but it's usually easier to park around the junction of Eleventrees and Burns, or just walk from the stone circle layby.

It's also a pretty small site, albeit quite popular with photographers and local dog walkers, so I'd guess pretty rare to actually bump into someone from the NT there hence all the existing footage. Anyway, given a suitably long lens you could probably get some pretty good video without even overflying NT land. Just sayin'.

 

[dannybgoode]

@zocalo - I’m really interested to see what they put in the drone code iro of private land. Be good if they could provide some clarity on the whole thing.

Sadly I suspect they won’t even give it a passing mention

 

[zocalo]

@zocalo - I’m really interested to see what they put in the drone code iro of private land. Be good if they could provide some clarity on the whole thing.

Sadly I suspect they won’t even give it a passing mention

More legal clarity would be very welcome, especially in situations that could potentially lead to civil suits as the CAA/criminal law side is already pretty clear cut, IMO. I raised it in my consultation feedback, and I'm pretty sure others would have done as well, so, given that the previous consulation report was actually pretty thorough I suspect it will at least get a mention. Whether they do anything about it though is another matter entirely, of course.

 

[THE CYBORG]

Got a reply.

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding permission to fly a drone and film over Castlerigg Stone Circle in the Lake District.

The National Trust does not permit the flying of drones over, across or from any of its properties unless it is to undertake aerial work or research on behalf of the Trust; in which case the individual or company would need to meet stringent CAA requirements of competency as a pilot, carry full and sufficient aviation insurance and public liability insurance and meet National Trust criteria to operate on its land.

I know this may be a rather disappointing response to your request but this decision is based, not only, on restrictions laid down by the CAA but also due consideration has been given to comply with data protection to visitors, risk, and the general enjoyment of visitors to our sites.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I can understand it at that location, based on the descriptions made of its popularity.

You have to love the last clause "and meet National Trust criteria to operate on its land" basically = 99% of even commercial drone operators will be very lucky to get permission unless doing work specifically for NT.
All they have to do is make it unrealistically hard until one gives up.

Ah well, you did the right thing and asked.
If you find suitable sites that are more remote, virtually devoid of people say at sunrise, and you can fly to from off the NT lands, perhaps you may take the opportunity to fly other sites.
I guess that would require going to the place and assessing at the time.

I have often been to nice spots on the coast here, jetties at sunset etc, but 9/10 times I won't put it up due to the risks with people around.
If travelling in the remote outback desert areas, I will fly in National Parks I may be travelling through using the same common sense.
Sometimes we don't see others for days out there, we've gone a week or more and not seen another vehicle.

Put it behind you and keep looking for more accessible great locations, I'm sure you have plenty of options

 

[MavicNovice]

Got a reply.

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding permission to fly a drone and film over Castlerigg Stone Circle in the Lake District.

The National Trust does not permit the flying of drones over, across or from any of its properties unless it is to undertake aerial work or research on behalf of the Trust; in which case the individual or company would need to meet stringent CAA requirements of competency as a pilot, carry full and sufficient aviation insurance and public liability insurance and meet National Trust criteria to operate on its land.

I know this may be a rather disappointing response to your request but this decision is based, not only, on restrictions laid down by the CAA but also due consideration has been given to comply with data protection to visitors, risk, and the general enjoyment of visitors to our sites.

Infuriating, frankly. Having gone some way to demonstrate you are a responsible owner and sought direct permission, the tone of the response speaks volumes.

" ...the individual or company would need to meet stringent CAA requirements of competency as a pilot, carry full and sufficient aviation insurance and public liability insurance..."
Simply stating 'You would need to meet CAA requirements and have appropriate liability insurance' was too few words?

And as for '...and meet National Trust criteria to operate on its land..." criteria we won't actually reveal here, so you can't actually meet them.
Frustrating.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Sometimes you can be lucky and get your shot(s) without actually being on or above their land e.g this one I posted on an old thread.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Sometimes you can be lucky and get your shot(s) without actually being on or above their land e.g this one I posted on an old thread.

Exactly, don't overfly any part of their boundaries and you are totally in the right.
Still, if it was remote and not another sole around, many would fly over the property . . . not over buildings, but at a good distance.
Yes, against the NT rules (which they shouldn't be able to enforce anyway), but since all the other factors they state are of concern are negated ?

 

[THE CYBORG]

I haven't flown when the tourists are around, very difficult because as soon as some leave more arrive.
The photographers are all set up by half five in the morning for the sunrise and when they pack up the tourists start to trickle in.

I just want the stones with no people as its more atmospheric but it makes for a very long day hanging around waiting.

If I was in an adjoining field I could possibly crash into someone when they pop out from behind a stone, they get everywhere so at least when I was close enough to make sure no one was around I couldn't do any harm to anyone or anything, couldn't damage the stones with a full speed crash.

I will have to go through the footage I have and see if I can put something decent together, the only thing I am lacking is a panorama view of the surrounding mountains so on the next calm, sunny but cloudy day I will lift off from somewhere close by.

Problem is the weather in the English lake district can change rapidly, I could set off in sunshine but arrive in rain.

 

[Derlisz]

Different countries, different rules. The English National Trust is a charity that owns vast tracts of land and properties here in England, (there is similar for Scotland, not sure of Wales) that is intended to mange and protect said land and properties “forever for everyone”, their words. They don’t however allow the public to fly drones over any of their assets unless you pay them a hefty fee even if you fly from a road or footpath. They are backed by act of parliament and can make their own bylaws.
I can see their point when it’s a popular house or garden and the place is heaving with people but they apply their rules blanket fashion so you can be in open country with no one around and still be unable to fly legally.

Funny enough I have read their bylaws and they have nothing against the drones or nothing that can be even interpreted close to no fly zone in there.

 

[zocalo]

Funny enough I have read their bylaws and they have nothing against the drones or nothing that can be even interpreted close to no fly zone in there.

Quite true. Besides CAA regulations, the NT byelaw they seem to be pinning this on is this:

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.

I think that means they're good on their commerical ban of drones on their property without explicit consent, but also as landowner they do have the right to issue a default ban on flying drones from their land because as pilots *are* supposed seek permission from landowners before operating from them (but not necessarily over them which is more subjective). This is also what gives their staff the right to ask drone operators on their property to pack up, and potentially leave the grounds. Claiming the ban is underpinned by their byelaws rather than just landowner's civil rights, especially trespass, is incorrect though.

So, as I continue to read the situation:

• Non-commercial imagery of their properties taken legally from outside their grounds is perfectly fine.
• Commercial use of the same imagery without authorisation could (on past NT form) result in a civil suit, but would obviously depend on specifics of the footage and where it was shot from.
• Commercial imagery taken within their grounds without permission is covered by the photography byelaw and definitely out. On past form you can probably expect to be on the receiving end of civil suit if the NT finds out as well.
• Non-commerical imagery from within their grounds (assuming the flight is otherwise CAA legal) basically fall down to landowner's rights and their ability to bring a civil suit on whatever grounds they feel has some merit.

Whether they would bring a civil suit or not would likely depend on the circumstances as it will incur cost and inconvenience for all parties, and if they lose it sets a precedent they won't want. It's clearly a grey area and one I personally would prefer to avoid taking too many risks with, but provided a given flight is legal, the footage isn't commercialised, and there are clearly no safety or privacy angles they could cite in civil court (e.g. deserted open countryside) I expect they'd be more inclined to let it slide.

 

[DrRobin]

Unfortunately most land is private and organisations like the National Trust have simply drawn up rules regarding drone flying, if they didn't it would be a free for all and they would get complaints. Expect the national parks and other public spaces to go the same way, if they haven't already.

Sadly there will be few places left where we can enjoy our drone and get great footage, but that always happens when something gets popular.