UK SSSI blanket drone ban - ridiculous!

[Njal]

Have a look at Ian in London's Youtube video:

From his comment below the video:

"The CAA confirm that landowners cannot impose their own airspace regulations any more than you can impose a speed limit outside your own house. The CAA regulates airspace, no one else. This means the landowner can prohibit you taking off, operating and landing but cannot prohibit you flying over, anymore they could a paraglider or hot air balloon. That said, respecting English Heritage's wish, I waited until around closing time to ensure visitors weren't bothered in any way. Remember to always fly with the greatest consideration for others who won't be enjoying the amazing views you get! "

Somewhere on his site (which I can't find at present) he has an email from the CAA entitled "Question on the prohibition of consumer drones over private land".

The reply from the CAA is:

"They do not own the airspace and if you abide by the ANO and other airspace restrictions in that area e.g. NOTAMs then you may operate"

Though personally I wouldn't want to annoy anyone or upset any wildlife.

And I'm only telling you what he says and have no specialist knowledge on any of this!

 

[Njal]

The email referred to in my post above is at about 2min 50 sec in:

Also there's a smartphone app published by the UK's Air Traffic Control which tells you where you can operate and where you can't.

Safety Apps - Dronesafe

Drone Assist Drone Assist is the drone safety app powered by Altitude Angel. It provides an interactive map of the sky and is used by general aviation, balloon pilots, and other airspace users. It allows you to see areas to avoid or in which extreme caution should be exercised, as well as...

dronesafe.uk

 

[Lastrexking]

Ok - so, this is my field. I work for the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Prior to that I worked at the Environment Agency for 12 years.

Firstly, I'm not familiar with the specific areas the SSSI's are in place - just the reasons they are.

Whilst I agree it is becoming more difficult to fly drones here in the UK, the SSSI ban is for a good reason. SSSI's are generally in place to protect rare native species, most commonly - birds.

Birds tend to nest in a safe environment away from predators and will see drones as a predatory threat. Flying drones over them can have a huge effect on their nesting and breeding behaviour, subsequently reducing their populations. So, the Farne Islands for example would be hugely impacted by the presence of a drone, as not a great deal of birds of prey are present there (due to the lack of coastal woodland).

My mother lives in Seahouses, so I'm familiar with a lot of the region. The sand dunes between seahouses and Bamburgh are also home to many nesting birds, so will be similarly affected.

I feel your pain - I liked to fly on the beach at Bamburgh. But, I also recognise that we as a species are doing more harm than good - and if flying my drone somewhere else helps protect a species we share the planet with, the I'm personally all for it.

 

[zocalo]

The email referred to in my post above is at about 2min 50 sec in:

Also there's a smartphone app published by the UK's Air Traffic Control which tells you where you can operate and where you can't.

Safety Apps - Dronesafe

Drone Assist Drone Assist is the drone safety app powered by Altitude Angel. It provides an interactive map of the sky and is used by general aviation, balloon pilots, and other airspace users. It allows you to see areas to avoid or in which extreme caution should be exercised, as well as...

dronesafe.uk

Disclaimer: IANAL - this is just my interpretation based on personal research.

NATS & the CAA are only concerned with the criminal laws that they enforce, e.g. the ANO, which, as noted, gives them complete jurisdiction over the airspace from ground level up in matters of criminal law. Flying in some locations, e.g. some of the SSSIs, may also entail their own breaches of separate criminal laws, so even though NATS and the CAA may be OK with a given flight under their part of the statute book it still doesn't mean that you are legally OK to fly.

What all this does not do is give them any powers in civil law, which is what organizations like the National Trust, English Heritage, and any other landowner, are likely to use if you take off from outside their land and overfly in an otherwise perfectly legal flight. The CAA has previously stated (and I think it's in print on their website somewhere) that they actively try to avoid becoming involved in civil matters unless a potential breach of the ANO is also involved. Civil suits are far more nebulous, generally incur expense for both sides, and will hinge on matters of breaches of privacy and/or causing a disturbance. There is also a bit of precedent from an earlier court case where it was ruled that the balance was best struck "by restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it" (Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited[1978]). And, yes, that's the most precise ruling there is on how far those rights extend - anyone specifying fixed altitudes is talking out of their posterior; it's entirely at the discretion of the judge in the specific case in front of them.

In practice, civil suits are taken often on their individual merits, so while precedence does matter it might not carry as much weight as expected and the case will largely be decided based on how the specific judge interprets the arguments made by both sides and how they pertain to the claims being made by the plaintiff. As noted, this route will incur costs for the plaintiff, but also they have a number of obstacles to success:

1. The would have to detect the drone in the first place (increasingly hard with ever quieter models)
2. They would then have to locate, and identify the pilot (with registration, the latter is now a little easier)
3. They would then have to bring a civil suit (£££) and prevail in court.

#3 also includes a lot of risk. If, for instance, the National Trust or English Heritage, were to try this and fail (assuming an otherwise legal flight) then they risk opening the floodgates and their current blanket bans being thown into disarray. (Which they arguably already are, because they underpin their blanket bans on the premise that the majority of drone operators are unregistered and have not passed any form of competency test - which we now all are/have, right?)

All in all, I think it comes down to this:

1. Obey the Drone Code & applicable sections of the ANO
2. Do what you can to ensure it's OK to fly
3. Fly safely and legally at all times
4. Be mindful of others (including animals) that are in the vicinity of the flight (don't be a jerk)
5. Be polite and remain calm if you do get challenged, given the circumstances
6. Did I mention the Drone Code?

If you do that, and can back it up if challenged, then even if you are caught flying over an SSSI, NT/EH land, or whatever, then you'll almost certainly only ever get asked to land and be able to go on your way pretty quickly without any further issues. Substitute overseas legal equivalents, and it's pretty much the same in my experience, and that includes being questioned in nations that are far more authoritarian than the UK. In fact, quite often there actually isn't a problem; we're still a niche hobby and it's not at all unusual to find some official that is just curious about the drone and looking for something to liven up an otherwise routine day; I actually ended up getting some very scenic location tips from a police officer in Georgia (the country, not the US state) after giving him the sticks for a few minutes.

 

[Lastrexking]

Disclaimer: IANAL - this is just my interpretation based on personal research.

NATS & the CAA are only concerned with the criminal laws that they enforce, e.g. the ANO, which, as noted, gives them complete jurisdiction over the airspace from ground level up in matters of criminal law. Flying in some locations, e.g. some of the SSSIs, may also entail their own breaches of separate criminal laws, so even though NATS and the CAA may be OK with a given flight under their part of the statute book it still doesn't mean that you are legally OK to fly.

What all this does not do is give them any powers in civil law, which is what organizations like the National Trust, English Heritage, and any other landowner, are likely to use if you take off from outside their land and overfly in an otherwise perfectly legal flight. The CAA has previously stated (and I think it's in print on their website somewhere) that they actively try to avoid becoming involved in civil matters unless a potential breach of the ANO is also involved. Civil suits are far more nebulous, generally incur expense for both sides, and will hinge on matters of breaches of privacy and/or causing a disturbance. There is also a bit of precedent from an earlier court case where it was ruled that the balance was best struck "by restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it" (Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited[1978]). And, yes, that's the most precise ruling there is on how far those rights extend - anyone specifying fixed altitudes is talking out of their posterior; it's entirely at the discretion of the judge in the specific case in front of them.

In practice, civil suits are taken often on their individual merits, so while precedence does matter it might not carry as much weight as expected and the case will largely be decided based on how the specific judge interprets the arguments made by both sides and how they pertain to the claims being made by the plaintiff. As noted, this route will incur costs for the plaintiff, but also they have a number of obstacles to success:

1. The would have to detect the drone in the first place (increasingly hard with ever quieter models)
2. They would then have to locate, and identify the pilot (with registration, the latter is now a little easier)
3. They would then have to bring a civil suit (£££) and prevail in court.

#3 also includes a lot of risk. If, for instance, the National Trust or English Heritage, were to try this and fail (assuming an otherwise legal flight) then they risk opening the floodgates and their current blanket bans being thown into disarray. (Which they arguably already are, because they underpin their blanket bans on the premise that the majority of drone operators are unregistered and have not passed any form of competency test - which we now all are/have, right?)

All in all, I think it comes down to this:

1. Obey the Drone Code & applicable sections of the ANO
2. Do what you can to ensure it's OK to fly
3. Fly safely and legally at all times
4. Be mindful of others (including animals) that are in the vicinity of the flight (don't be a jerk)
5. Be polite and remain calm if you do get challenged, given the circumstances
6. Did I mention the Drone Code?

If you do that, and can back it up if challenged, then even if you are caught flying over an SSSI, NT/EH land, or whatever, then you'll almost certainly only ever get asked to land and be able to go on your way pretty quickly without any further issues. Substitute overseas legal equivalents, and it's pretty much the same in my experience, and that includes being questioned in nations that are far more authoritarian than the UK. In fact, quite often there actually isn't a problem; we're still a niche hobby and it's not at all unusual to find some official that is just curious about the drone and looking for something to liven up an otherwise routine day; I actually ended up getting some very scenic location tips from a police officer in Georgia (the country, not the US state) after giving him the sticks for a few minutes.

SSSI’s are there for a reason though. To protect at risk species. Just because you might not get caught, or only politely asked to leave doesn’t mean you should fly there. That’s a very selfish attitude.

Please consider at risk species, and all the hard work other people are putting into making safe environments for them - most of whom are volunteers.

 

[Gobuchul]

SSSI’s are there for a reason though. To protect at risk species.

That is fully understood.

However, how can a drone that weighs <1.0kg present a risk when it's considered OK to operate much larger, nosier, heavier and polluting machinery in the exact same location?

 

[Gobuchul]

Whilst I agree it is becoming more difficult to fly drones here in the UK, the SSSI ban is for a good reason. SSSI's are generally in place to protect rare native species, most commonly - birds.

The SSSI at Bamburgh has absolutely nothing to with birds.

Bamburgh SSSI description

It's all about vegetation and insects.

So, the Farne Islands for example would be hugely impacted by the presence of a drone, as not a great deal of birds of prey are present there (due to the lack of coastal woodland).

Only partly true. If you go to the Farnes at this time of year, there are no nesting birds. There are seals.

Besides, why are the fleets of visiting boats and daytrippers not a problem? It's part of the "experience" to be dive bombed by the terns on Inner Farne, they are only behaving in that manner because they are feeling threatened. How is this acceptable if it's all about the wildlife?

Although, it's a moot point, due to the nature of the site I simply wouldn't fly there.

 

[Lastrexking]

The SSSI at Bamburgh has absolutely nothing to with birds.

Bamburgh SSSI description

It's all about vegetation and insects.



Only partly true. If you go to the Farnes at this time of year, there are no nesting birds. There are seals.

Besides, why are the fleets of visiting boats and daytrippers not a problem? It's part of the "experience" to be dive bombed by the terns on Inner Farne, they are only behaving in that manner because they are feeling threatened. How is this acceptable if it's all about the wildlife?

Although, it's a moot point, due to the nature of the site I simply wouldn't fly there.

As I said in my original post - I wasn't familiar with those exact SSSI's and this was a general explanation. I also said 'most commonly birds' - not 'specifically birds'.

People on boats and walking around don't resemble birds of prey and larger seabirds (the natural predators of birds, fish and other smaller protected species). Neither do fishing boats. Drones, are much more of a perceived threat to a nesting bird, or small mammal.

I can see both sides of the issue. As a drone flyer, I also want to get out there and enjoy taking photos'. I also feel we're being marginalised as a hobby.

But, I also see the other side in this specific case. A few years ago I spent time working on creating nesting sight for otters here in Yorkshire with a group of volunteers. They invested a lot of time, and their own money to build four otter holts on some public land. Part of the land was used by a local fishing club. They agreed to not use the land for fishing anymore if we moved one of their points further upstream - which we did. Except, one bloke didn't want to move 50 meters upstream. He'd fished at this one point 'all his life', and he continued to do so. The result was the otters didn't move in. This resulted in no land for the older otter pups to move into, which ended up in fighting over territory, and dead otters - and, no otters moving into the new holts. They're still empty four years later, and the otters have completely left the area as they can't expand.

I appreciate that's a long (boring story), but the point I'm making is - we have to consider other species, and other people. We don't have an indisputable right to fly wherever we want.

 

[Gobuchul]

the point I'm making is - we have to consider other species, and other people. We don't have an indisputable right to fly wherever we want.

I completely agree with you.

I am in no way claiming a right to fly anywhere and without consideration for the environment.

What I don't agree with is an ill thought out blanket ban.

People on boats and walking around don't resemble birds of prey and larger seabirds

They are still seen as a threat to the terns, that's why they attack people to protect their nests.

 

[zocalo]

SSSI’s are there for a reason though. To protect at risk species. Just because you might not get caught, or only politely asked to leave doesn’t mean you should fly there. That’s a very selfish attitude.

Please consider at risk species, and all the hard work other people are putting into making safe environments for them - most of whom are volunteers.

At risk species is *one* reason for an SSSI, others have no real relevance to drone operations although it will depend on the specific location, but it's obviously just easier for Natural England to do the blanket ban. Anyway, I think I covered all that on my second point - do what you can to ensure it's OK to fly; note the "OK" and not just "legal". It was also covered by #4, where I specifically stated being mindful of animals as well as people.

Complying with #2 and #4 would include checking local bylaws, etc., and if necessary contacting the relevant official body. For SSSI's specifically, I posted the contact details for NE in an earlier post, but for convenience here they are again: NE's general number is 0300 060 3900, and is available from 8:30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday excluding public holidays. If you have a bit more time, then you can also email them at [email protected]

 

[Lastrexking]

At risk species is *one* reason for an SSSI, others have no real relevance to drone operations although it will depend on the specific location, but it's obviously just easier for Natural England to do the blanket ban. Anyway, I think I covered all that on my second point - do what you can to ensure it's OK to fly; note the "OK" and not just "legal". It was also covered by #4, where I specifically stated being mindful of animals as well as people.

Complying with #2 and #4 would include checking local bylaws, etc., and if necessary contacting the relevant official body. For SSSI's specifically, I posted the contact details for NE in an earlier post, but for convenience here they are again: NE's general number is 0300 060 3900, and is available from 8:30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday excluding public holidays. If you have a bit more time, then you can also email them at [email protected]

I agree - a blanket ban is thoughtless, and overkill. And, yes - at-risk species is just one of the categories for a SSSI. What I'm trying to do is give some context.

As an aside, and time permitting - I will be contacting my colleagues in Natural England for clarification, and questioning the reasons why they decided on a blanket ban, specifically on areas that don't cover at-risk species.
I don't hold any sway with them, and work in entirely different fields - but, they may be more willing to engage with someone from their parent organisation.

 

[Manty]

I volunteer at a place which contains an SSSI. My boss informs me that SSSIs are set up for a number of reasons. Birds, Animals, Fauna and for geological reasons. The beaches he thinks are probably for the latter and cannot see why Natural England could not grant permission to fly there providing one does not stray over the land. The whole coastline seems like a bit of an overkill.

 

[Hiwayman]

At risk species is *one* reason for an SSSI, others have no real relevance to drone operations although it will depend on the specific location, but it's obviously just easier for Natural England to do the blanket ban. Anyway, I think I covered all that on my second point - do what you can to ensure it's OK to fly; note the "OK" and not just "legal". It was also covered by #4, where I specifically stated being mindful of animals as well as people.

Complying with #2 and #4 would include checking local bylaws, etc., and if necessary contacting the relevant official body. For SSSI's specifically, I posted the contact details for NE in an earlier post, but for convenience here they are again: NE's general number is 0300 060 3900, and is available from 8:30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday excluding public holidays. If you have a bit more time, then you can also email them at [email protected]

For the purpose of updating this thread, I tried to speak to someone about a local SSSI at N E but was advised any requests had to be submitted by email for consideration...5 days later I am no further forward.

 

[gnirtS]

The "its illegal" claim yet again is poorly informed and designed to intimidate while it isnt actually in fact illegal at all.
They can prevent you operating *from* not over.
Anything else would require bye-laws and (i) despite claims, most dont have them and (ii) thats a civil matter even if they do. The CAA is quite happy private land owners cannot legislate airspace.

However, common sense needs to be employed, if you;re going to try to fly over an SSSI, make an effort to find out *why* its an SSSI. If its due to a rare type of plant or insect then common sense would say its likely OK. If its nesting or rare birds or anything that might be disturbed by a drone then use common sense and dont fly.

Drone bans arent needed - in all these areas there are existing bye-laws and rules about causing a disturbance or interfering with the wildlife. These rules are perfectly applicable to drone users without creating new ones.

 

[Hiwayman]

The "its illegal" claim yet again is poorly informed and designed to intimidate while it isnt actually in fact illegal at all.
They can prevent you operating *from* not over.
Anything else would require bye-laws and (i) despite claims, most dont have them and (ii) thats a civil matter even if they do. The CAA is quite happy private land owners cannot legislate airspace.

However, common sense needs to be employed, if you;re going to try to fly over an SSSI, make an effort to find out *why* its an SSSI. If its due to a rare type of plant or insect then common sense would say its likely OK. If its nesting or rare birds or anything that might be disturbed by a drone then use common sense and dont fly.

Drone bans arent needed - in all these areas there are existing bye-laws and rules about causing a disturbance or interfering with the wildlife. These rules are perfectly applicable to drone users without creating new ones.

So, NE have advised me that I need to get the landowner of the SSSI to submit an application for the flight...I don't think that will be happening ?
I am not proposing to take off or land from the SSSI and I will be 150' above it.
I have requested sight of the legislation that requires me to submit the info they have requested. Otherwise I will fly under the permission I have and in accordance with my OM

 

[gnirtS]

The landowner has no ability or power to restrict overflight, merely operating from...

 

[zocalo]

The landowner has no ability or power to restrict overflight, merely operating from...

That, and in many cases the landowner probably won't understand the specific needs of the SSSI and either just say "no" (as noted, only applicable on the "operating from" aspect) or, even if they are amienable to the flight, err on the side of caution and refer you straight to back to NE. This smacks of passing the buck and puts me in mind of that old childhood strategy of individually playing each parent off each other to try and get one of them to say "yes" to something. If trying this, I'd start by making it clear to the landowner that NE's assent will still be required and you're just looking for a general permission to operate from their land - the technicalities of the SSSI will lie with NE.

From a practical (not legal!) perspective I'd say doing your homework and good judgement should be fine in most cases. Find out the reason for the SSSI: if it's for fauna that may, even in the slightest, be adversely affected by your flight plans then it's probably best not to fly (which some leeway for time limited stuff like nesting periods) - the good judgement part. In all other scenarios, making sure you adhere to the Drone Code and flying from public land should protect you from any criminal prosecutions - and certainly any under the ANO. What I'm still not sure on is whether NE can bring a criminal prosecution for any flights over SSSIs, regardless of the reason for its designation.

What that strategy definitely won't do is protect you from potential civil prosecutions from the landowner, and/or NE in this case, should they decide to bring one under whatever grounds they can come up with (but that applies to all flights). That's where good judgement comes in again; you need to decide whether the flight might be problematic and whether the footage is worth the risks, because on that point the ANO is very clear - you are responsible for all aspects of your flight.

 

[Hiwayman]

The site is a public beach, completely submerged twice a day by the tide, and filled with hundreds of children playing at a weekend or in school holidays...no doubt many flying kites which I believe NE also restrict. Locals also advise me of many hobbyist drone flights too ?
I can feel a freedom of information request coming on to assess their enforcement rates.

 

[zocalo]

The site is a public beach, completely submerged twice a day by the tide, and filled with hundreds of children playing at a weekend or in school holidays...no doubt many flying kites which I believe NE also restrict. Locals also advise me of many hobbyist drone flights too ?
I can feel a freedom of information request coming on to assess their enforcement rates.

Wait a minute. It lies between the high and low tide lines? That strip of "land" is officially classed as belonging to The Crown and the general public has explicit permission to basically treat it as common land - e.g. you can (within reason) use it as you see fit and you already *have* the permission of the landowner. There's a similar situation at the White Cliffs of Dover where the National Trust owns the strip of land at the clifftops, but can't do jack about you flying a drone from the beach (the Drone Code still applies, obviously). Likewise, councils that prevent you from walking dogs on their beaches cannot prevent you from walking them beyond the high tide line when the tide is out (assuming you can access it without crossing the permanent breach).

Clearly this is specific to the particular SSSI, and getting into a legal dispute concerning whether NE's rules trump The Queen's is going to be messy and expensive, but it does seem like it would strengthen your case, and make it a done deal if this SSSI did not involve protecting wildlife.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

There's a similar situation at the White Cliffs of Dover where the National Trust owns the strip of land at the clifftops, but can't do jack about you flying a drone from the beach (the Drone Code still applies, obviously).

Exactly, like VLOS, what good is flying up to the cliff top edge, and not being able to go further ?
Besides loss of VLOS, you'd be lucky to keep any sort of signal, wifi would be out totally, Occusync or Lightbridge wouldn't last long in such a case.
A lot of sites like that, our council controlled parks, National Parks (in most states), etc, their non allowance of using their land (to fly from or land) = drone flight is not able to be done to the airspace regulators drone rules, so they can effectively stop people from flying over . . . IF those pilots are following the general drone rules.