Anti Drone Public Spaces Protection Orders

I have emailed my local council regarding drone piloting. I pointed out that they have areas for sports, play areas and other activities, and yet they are excluding drone piloting. I’m still awaiting a reply but if I receive a negative answer then I’ll play the “Diversity and Inclusion” card.

4 Likes

If your location information is correct.

3 Likes

I’d send a copy of the original request and answer to the CAA, the are pretty good and see what they say, just trying to put a PSPO on anything you don’t like is detracting from your civil liberties and discriminatory. Ta

1 Like

Yeah I saw all that and pointed out to them politely, and gave them links to the drone code and the CAA directives for UAV’s. I also answered every one of their concerns with facts, and proposed that their public liability insurance would not be affected if the UAV pilot could have proof of said insurance.
My letter covered a lot, lot more but my major concern is that at the moment, drone pilots in Shropshire account for a very minority of the population and they take the attitude that they will only piss off that minority.

Definitely discrimination… did you ask them how many formal complaints they have had or how many people asked for restrictions to be imposed, these are key to placing an order on any matter, not just UAV’s. If needed then as as Freedom of information request, or make up a banner and stand outside the Council Office… :slight_smile: My council have responded with exactly above, they would need a significant number of formal complaints, but even then it would take a lot to impose anything… perhaps don’t do the banner then just yet… ha-ha.

Cheers

1 Like

Pretty sure that discrimination in those terms generally refers to something that is an inherent characteristic rather than just someone’s chosen hobby.

I sent the letter on 31/3/21 and had an automated response that they aim to reply in within 10 working days…as if!
I know they are not very compliant as I had to phone the main office just to get the email address to reply to the draft measures. :confounded:

Could an inherent characteristic for the hatred of drones be discrimination? I don’t know.

I didn’t take it to mean discrimination in the sense of protected characteristics such as disability or gender.

More to the fact it does discriminate against those of us who do it properly because it’s a blanket/general stance often stemming from ignorance of the specifics.

3 Likes

Was looking at undertaking a flight at Haysden Country Park in Tonbridge, my research shows that they implemented a PSPO Borough wide to prevent drone flights.

Just emailed them and asked if they would give me permission I suspect it will be the usual anti drone nope or yes but have you got xyz and lots of £££.

Will let you know what I get back.

Radio silence from Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council.

Always good to criminalise something and make it impossible to get permission to do it.

Also looking in to the justification for the adding of drones to the pspo is iffy at best.

I had an interesting conversation with my local councillor today on the subject of trees, as a number in the area require maintenance and residents are getting a bit peed off about it.

Turns out the council don’t own the land the trees are on, and that the original developer of the estate in this case Taylor Wimpy remain owners of a number of pathways in the estate. For what it’s worth this estate was built in the 70s, so it’s by no means a ‘new build’

To quote to the best of my ability "Neither the County or Borough Councils have any responsibility for the paths leading off XXXXX Close they remain in the ownership of Taylor Wimpy.

I will check on ownership of the other trees. Those on the public highway, footways and footpaths are usually the responsibility of the County Council, and those on green spaces tend to be Borough Council. However, trees on the estate are often the responsibility of the developers such as Taylor Wimpy.

Now, whilst I don’t condone taking off in built up residential estates. This potentially opens a further grey area when it comes to councils attempting to blanket ban drone flights. Considering how long in this example getting Taylor Wimpy to do anything about the trees is taking, I really doubt they could be arsed about drones and dealing with any legality issues.

In short, it’s worth digging deeper perhaps on who actually owns the land where you intend to take off, as it may not actually be council owned and their blanket ban policies may be pretty hard to govern in residential areas.

The council say they’re not responsible for the trees on paths leading off the close, are these footpaths that go between the houses? It would be unusual for a council not to adopt the roads meaning it’s only the footpaths which are owned by TW.

Indeed, from a drone perspective you’re unlikely to take off from the road. Plenty of these paths lead to roads very near a park for example. It’s just another potential grey area if you were take off with a <250g drone from say an estates path and then trundle over to wherever it was you wanted to photo (that loophole again)

For context this came about because the tree itself isn’t on the path but it’s roots are tearing up the footpath hence the stalemate between council and developer, the developer apparently also own the grass on the side and back of my property not just the path although the council cut the grass! Very confusing. Just thought it was another potential sticky legal mess when it comes to borough councils attempting to blanket ban drones with PSPOs.

1 Like

got this last week (last sentence is interesting):

1 Like

Intriguing.

Don’t tell them, but I’m reasonably sure there is no such thing as an “exemption” from a PSPO, the best they could offer would be to give notice they don’t intend to enforce it in a specific instance. The PSPO remains in effect until it is rescinded or revised.

Since everything covered by a PSPO should, by definition, be unacceptable and persistent anti-social behaviour, the very fact they’d consider non-enforcement underscores that the PSPO is not fit for purpose.

2 Likes

My understanding is the wording of the PSPO is no flights without permission so by having permission that should satisfy the legal element.

You forgot to enclose a check donating to a charity of the councillors choice I suspect.

Just had a read of TMBC’s PSPO. It’s complete bollocks - their evidence that drones needed to be banned was that council officers saw drones flying twice over the castle. Big wow! Given that the requirement for an item in the PSPO is that it must have a “detrimental effect on the quality of life”, it’s far from clear why a drone flying with permission should be treated any differently from one without permission. But that just shows why the entire law is objectionable.

The wording in the TMBC PSPO is “A fixed penalty notice will be issued to anyone who uses a drone on Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council open spaces without having the correct authorisation or training.” So you’re correct, their written permission is sufficient.

1 Like

“without the correct authorisation or training”

I imagine they meant and, but the way it’s drafted I read that as you need the correct authorisation OR you need the correct training…not both ???

3 Likes