Looking at that expample, go from the foreshore just south of the LightHouse, the NT will have you believe as above that you cannot fly over their land, but its simply not the case.
Check out the local authority tool on DroneScene, these councils may say they have byelaws, but probably dont (North Tyneside, Northumberland and Gateshead definitely don’t
historic Scotland state no flying over there buildings is the 50m rule i was mentioning
So this would be a case of requesting the councils of their drone policy inparticular asking them to quote the specific bylaw under the freedom of information act
Its all done for you in DroneScene
Clearly out of date
I am ex forces so my days of not being able to question a rule are long gone, and if it wasnt for forums like this you wouldnt know, i dont trust what any cooperation say as they dont give a shit about joe bloggs.
Do you think they mention these blanket no drone policies in the hope at a large percentage of flyers wont bother, i will look at all that info you have pointed my way thanks Chris , this club and members have been so helpful since i joined all much appreciated
It’s not the whole beach that’s crown property, only the foreshore, but apparently in Scotland only about 55% of the foreshore is owned by the crown (read that somewhere).
Approximately 52% of Scotland’s total territorial area is seabed and very nearly all of this area is still owned by the Crown.
Since you asked so nicely… 
Honestly, if I had £1 for every time I’ve seen somebody arguing online that Scotland’s Right to Roam Act (i.e. Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003) gives them carte blanche to do whatever they like, wherever they like… well, I’d be flying an Inspire 2 for a start.
So, apologies for this… but abuse of this particular Act causes misery for a lot of people. Particularly in rural Scotland, and especially now that ‘staycationing’ has become the lockdown panacea.
The Act is worth a read, I agree. Start with paragraph 6.1(a,b,d,e,f).
There really are several routes through for HES to argue that the land they manage here is excluded from the Act. The very fact your drone has motors is all they really need (paragraph 9f)
My particular favourite for this thread is paragraph 29.2 which reads:
The Scottish Ministers may put up and maintain notices for the purposes of protecting the cultural heritage of land in respect of which access rights are exercisable.
At least it did until 2015 when an ancillary provision of the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014 changed it to replace ‘Scottish Ministers’ with ‘Historic Environment Scotland’.
Essentially, if HES want to disallow access to protect the land they have the legal authority to do exactly that.
Paragraph 9c of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 lists fishing as conduct excluded from access rights.
Indeed. 
Where did you get this from John? Got a link?
I said you can fly over it. i was wild camping at the Corrie Fee scotland which is Forestry Commission land a guy told me i couldn’t camp said he was Forestry Commission , told him to sling his hook and i flew my drone he apologizes and walked away. dont they need local byelaws ?
that was yesterday they said that lol
NT - well what about Glencoe ? How can you TOAL and fly over Glencoe as the TOAL will be on NT property? I guess people just ignore that.
As for fishing in Scotland, there is no free fishing in Scotland except sea fishing.
Like to see them on the summit of Buachaille Etive Mor and asking me lol
You can TOAL from north of the A82 just before you enter the Glen, it’s not NTS property. I often fly from the Old Military Road.
Absolutely. It’s a bit of a nonsense. The NT is supposed to be “protecting” places for the nation but at times it feels a bit more like policing.
Shame it’s English counterpart isn’t as forward thinking:
New Forest - I was nodding away in agreement with everything they were saying in that article until this … Many drones have cameras attached and these could infringe data protection laws (filming people without permission) and potentially could breach the Forestry Commission’s rules on commercial photography and filming.
Two things here. 1 My understanding is there is no automatic right to privacy in public and as such no permission is required to film anyone. 2. They quite rightly acknowledge that flying over their land is perfectly acceptable but then go on to say that any pictures of video taken ‘could’ breach their rules on commercial photography. Again, my understanding is that if flying over their land perfectly legally it is entirely up to me, the image owner, what I do with that image whether that be sell it, give it away or destroy it and they have no say in it whatsoever. Or do they mean when permission is granted to use their land. To me it’s not clear.
