Well said Simon. There are no Government Laws giving them the right to stop you flying over them. Just Fly it and give them the Bird…Get the Pun…Lol
3 Likes
right
1 Like
I’m a newbie here, so found this interesting and did the following research. Hopefully it provides a little more insight.
The real position is that taking off and landing outside National Trust land removes one clear landowner-permission issue, but it does not automatically make every flight over National Trust property lawful.
- What the National Trust byelaw actually says
The relevant provision is Byelaw 11(a)(iii) of the National Trust Byelaws 1965:
“No unauthorised person shall … ride or drive any conveyance over or upon Trust Property otherwise than upon roads, tracks and waterways authorised for the use of such conveyance.”
A note says “conveyance” includes any air, land or watercraft, vehicle or machine.
The National Trust’s website paraphrases this as prohibiting an unauthorised person from operating an airborne vehicle or machine “over National Trust property.” That is not the exact wording of the byelaw, but it is the Trust’s interpretation of it. The Trust expressly says it does not authorise private drone flying over its property. See its current drone policy.
There is a legitimate legal argument about whether “ride or drive any conveyance over or upon Trust Property” was intended to control aircraft passing through airspace, especially when the remote pilot is standing elsewhere. However, there does not appear to be a definitive reported court decision settling how Byelaw 11 applies to modern camera drones.
Therefore, it would be unsafe to state categorically that the byelaw only controls take-off and landing.
- Land ownership does not normally extend indefinitely upwards
The poster is broadly right on this general principle.
In Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479, the High Court rejected the idea that a landowner owns the airspace above their land to an unlimited height. The landowner’s rights extend broadly to the airspace necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land.
Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 also provides protection against trespass and nuisance claims arising solely from aircraft flight at a reasonable height, taking account of the circumstances.
But that does not create an unlimited right for drones to overfly private property:
- Drones normally fly much lower than conventional aircraft.
- A low or repeated flight around a house, castle, visitors or livestock may interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land.
- Section 76 refers to flight at a “reasonable height”; it does not define a universal safe height for drones.
- Trespass, nuisance, harassment, privacy, data-protection and wildlife legislation may still be relevant.
- A site-specific statutory byelaw may impose restrictions additional to ordinary land law.
So “the CAA controls airspace” is true, but incomplete. CAA compliance and property/byelaw compliance are separate questions.
- The CAA Drone Code is not permission to fly anywhere
The CAA rules establish the aviation conditions under which a drone may be flown. They do not grant permission to use someone else’s land or override local byelaws.
For a DJI Mini 4 Pro operated below 250g, the Open-category rules are relatively permissive: it may generally fly closer to and over individual uninvolved people, but never over crowds. You must also:
- remain below 120m/400ft from the closest point of the earth’s surface;
- maintain direct visual line of sight;
- avoid endangering anyone;
- check airport flight-restriction zones, temporary restrictions and other restricted airspace;
- respect privacy;
- avoid disturbing wildlife; and
- use a lawful take-off, landing and operating position.
One important update: the quoted post refers to the 2024 Drone Code. Under the current March 2026 rules, a drone weighing 100g or more requires a Flyer ID, and a camera-equipped drone weighing 100g or more also requires an Operator ID. The Operator ID must be displayed on the aircraft. The current rules are in the CAA Drone and Model Aircraft Code.
Also, Operator and Flyer IDs are registrations/competence credentials, not a licence giving a general right to enter or overfly property. Insurance is sensible and sometimes legally required depending on the operation, but it likewise does not create permission.
- Operating from outside the boundary
Taking off, landing and standing on genuinely public land—or private land where you have permission—is the correct starting point. But check carefully:
- A highway, lay-by, footpath or common is not automatically an unrestricted drone launch site.
- A public right of way across National Trust land normally gives a right to pass and repass; it does not necessarily permit using the location as a drone operating base.
- You must maintain visual line of sight throughout the flight. You cannot simply send the aircraft behind a castle, woodland or hillside.
- Avoid hovering close to buildings, windows, people or livestock.
- Do not fly over a busy visitor attraction if the visitors amount to a crowd.
- Check whether the property lies within restricted airspace or has a temporary restriction.
- Historic or protected sites may have sensitive nesting wildlife and additional restrictions.
- The CADW example
The Tretower Court and Castle example was handled sensibly. CADW is separate from the National Trust, and the local staff apparently gave permission for the flight subject to no take-off or landing from their property. That made the position significantly clearer because there was express consent to the proposed arrangement.
Providing them with photographs was a courteous exchange, although permission should ideally be recorded in writing—particularly if the site later wants to publish the images.
Bottom line
I would summarise the legal position this way:
Taking off and landing outside National Trust land removes the clearest landowner-permission problem, but it does not automatically authorise flight over National Trust property. A compliant flight at a reasonable height may not amount to ordinary airspace trespass, but the National Trust relies on its statutory byelaws to prohibit unauthorised drone operation over its property. The application of the 1965 wording to modern drones is legally arguable rather than conclusively resolved. CAA compliance, IDs and insurance do not override the byelaws or prevent possible claims involving nuisance, privacy, harassment or wildlife disturbance.
In practical terms, you might have an arguable defence in some circumstances, but “good to go” is overstating it. The low-risk approach is to obtain written permission or keep the drone outside the property boundary as well as operating from outside it. Regards Stewart
4 Likes
Very comprehensive write up! Thanks @Bigstewy1967
1 Like
We have been down this Road before.Don’t take off and Land on the trusts property,apart from that just follow the CAA flying rules that we are covered for when we pay our Yearly Fee.
4 Likes
If you are so worried about their rules you should give up drone flying and take up Flower Arranging.
1 Like
First a very warm welcome to DroneHub. I have read all the messages replying to your original posting and all I would say is listen to what @SimonDale has to say on the matter as he has extensive knowledge all things drone fpv related and of course the CAA.
It’s totally true that the NT does not own the airspace over their property and relying on an outdated local bylaw to justify their stance is inexcusable in my opinion.
The NT’s stance on drone flights over their land seems to me to be all about “their commercial interests” in other words money.
Whereas the CAA does have legal control of all United Kingdom airspace.
And so long as you comply with current privacy and safety laws.
If you fully comply with all 2026 CAA UK legislation laws and even recommendations regarding legal drone flight, (The Drone and Model Aircraft Code) https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/open-category/drone-code/ and have an Operator ID/Flyer ID and FPVUK membership (and all the benefits of)
IMHO,
Mike
2 Likes
I’m not an FPV flier but I always thought that NT could have a great day of organised racing at Brimham Rocks, Nr Harrogate. It could bring in a whole new type of visitor!
3 Likes
That was an excellent way of saying to NT…Go Away or some words like that. 
2 Likes
What a wonderful suggestion Simon, have you approached them with that? If I may be so bold.
But then the NT have never been great at communicating with “ordinary” people (the great unwashed public - only kidding as I don’t think you can say such things anymore - well wash my mouth out) you see I was born the same year as the NHS was created when free speech wasn’t shunned like today, and I think their new public facing motto should be “why change the habit of a lifetime”. 
2 Likes