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:

"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.

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"), 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, could take place over their property, which would be ridiculous. They are trying to claim drones are in some way different, whereas in law, in this respect, they aren't.

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.

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 drone falling squarely under the same overarching controls: The Air Navigation Order. Try telling that to the NT (one video sees a NT staff member claim the CAA only control "up there, at 30,000 feet").

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.