National Trust: Still Misleading

As we enter into another spring, some drone pilots will be taking an interest in National Trust properties and capturing fabulous images.

Flying towards and then over Plas Newydd, owned by NT.

Now, I can almost guarantee that when you read "National Trust properties", you're thinking of stately homes or maybe a park.

But the National Trust owns much more than this. They own vast tracts of land all over the UK - which probably explains the arrogant view of themselves that their 'drone rules' reveal.

Back in September 2024, the NT admitted, in response to a FoI request, that it could not restrict overflight of its properties at all. This, of course, would be abundantly clear to most drone pilots already. This is how The Defence Journal reported it:

 

The report correctly highlights that, despite this admission - which the NT must have tried very hard not to make - the NT web site continued to make the false assertion that overflight was not permitted. As of 05/04/2025, that claim is still being made, cynically and wholly improperly referring to the "CAA" and "byelaws":

The reference to "byelaws" would appear, in the applicable part, to be section 11. 

 

This does include a reference to "air" craft. However, reading through to 11(b), it's clear that there is no ban; it's a qualified expectation, provided you have been authorised:

"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."

In other words, you can ride, drive, boat or fly, so long as it's done carefully. There is no prohibition per se on any of these activities. It's just that the NT has to authorise your presence on their land, which they are entitled to do.

But all this, of course, is in the expectation that the NT control the airspace above their property, which they don't. Because flying over NT land is perfectly lawful (and thus means, under the byelaw, you'd be "authorised" inasmuch as the NT does not control airspace and thus flight within that space falls outside their control), there is the simple counter-argument that flying has unavoidable and necessary consequences as a lawful activity and that this can't, I would argue, reasonably be held to cause "danger or annoyance" in and of itself. If the byelaw were effective in this way, the NT would have to be claiming no flights, of any sort, by any aircraft, at any height could take place over their property, which would be ridiculous. They are trying, in a tinpot fashion, to claim drones are in some way different, whereas in law, in this respect, they aren't.

An enquiry to the NT brought increasing degrees of stupidity. They tried to say that their rules were "outside the CAA's". Whilst that's literally true, it also gives - and I would say is intended to give - the impression that the NT's rules are superior to CAA-mediated aviation law. That's quite a troubling stance to take.

I asked the NT, because of this, where they thought 'CAA' airspace ends and the NT's begins. They didn't answer that one, choosing instead to write waffle about the distinction between criminal and civil law. Trespass seems to be the only thing the NT is now clinging to, as they mention a drone "could trespass, depending on how it is flown". That, also, is true, though it would be a pretty irresponsible drone flier who would fall foul of that one, because s76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 explicitly exempts aircraft from claims of trespass when flown in accordance with the Air Navigation Order - in other words, in an ordinary, responsible way.

What the law says is not what the NT want to accept. Source: legislation.gov.uk, accessed 15/04/2025

 

And this last sentence is where so many are going wrong; they assume that drones are somehow 'not really aircraft' and that they 'don't really fall under aviation law governing 'proper' aircraft'. This seems to be fuelled by an unreasonable and baseless belief that all drone pilots are up to no good. Beyond that is sheer ignorance about ownership and control of airspace and an irrational, stubborn unwillingness to improve their understanding - because that would mean having to accept they are simply wrong.

The National Trust has a very big attitude problem, driven by an inflated view of itself as somehow enjoying a superior position in respect of airspace that, it has to be said, reflects its general worldview as some kind of defender of a glorious Britain - mostly created by slave owners and an issue the NT has, until recently, tried to resist addressing for a very long time. 

The NT enjoys no such position. Accepting it has to shut up and stop claiming it controls airspace is something it has had to do under the legal provisions of FoI, but refuses to do in any other way.

As you can see on the plethora YouTube 'audit' videos, NT staff are clearly still being told to very aggressively claim they can stop aircraft (i.e. drones) being flown over their properties. They will sometimes call the police. It all ends with either the police going away, doing nothing, or else arresting the drone pilot - invariably unlawfully - and then having to pay out a couple of thousand pounds for wrongful arrest - money that most 'auditors' then donate to good causes.

My own request for an explanation this week from the NT as to why they continue to deliberately mislead the public on drone flying on their website drew nothing other than a referral to their "imaging department". But that wasn't the enquiry I made. 

But it did reveal, once again, that money-making lies at the heart of the NT's unwavering efforts to stop what is, in fact, wholly lawful. None of these 'rules' make mention of any other aircraft, despite drones falling squarely under the same overarching controls: The Air Navigation Order. Try telling that to the NT (one video sees a NT staff member, who claims he was previously "a lawyer", claim the "CAA doesn't cover drones" (36:52) and that they only control "the airspace at 30,000 feet" (37:09)). He says an awful lot of other stuff that "a lawyer" elsewhere might find, well, surprising.

A response to a false request for permission I made to the NT drew this response from them:

"As we state on our website https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-we-are/about-us/flying-drones-at-our-places as landowner our rules fall outside the CAA’s so you can’t overfly without our permission."

This is a further extension of reality, suggesting very strongly that the NT's "rules" are superior to CAA-regulated airspace law and/or that the NT does not recognise airspace law. This response will be passed to the CAA as a matter of very real concern. The NT has been asked to clarify, in the meantime.

As for so many people who react badly to drones - which extends from the likes of NT all the way to the police - somewhere, an attitude has taken hold that drones are some kind of spy or terrorist device that only wrongdoers fly.

The NT has a troubling attitude that some might say borders of fascism - creating an environment where what they say - and not what the law says - holds sway. 

My advice?  Fly your drone as the law permits, especially over (but not from) NT property.