Well done and well spotted. I must go to Specsavers again!
Yup, clearly states air, so by law, no air conveyance and officers of NT will have powers to enforce such Bylaws as deemed necessary and appropriate. And by officers, anyone employed by NT.
That, sadly, answers this thread’s topic.
Conveyancing is the act of carrying or transporting something or someone. Looks like it was written for cars, boats & planes all of which convey someone or something.
Good call. That could then well be argued in a court of law. As a car carries or transports a person, albeit a driver. A drone, being unmanned, does not, so therefore could be no different to a kite or a balloon on a string with a camera attached controlled by someone on the ground.
They’d probably say it’s conveying a camera
As I understand it private entities, charitable or otherwise, such as the National Trust are restricted in what they can apply to be included in a bylaw enforcement request and airspace isn’t one of them. In 2008 the granting of bylaws was taken away from central government and handed over to local councils to grant and enforce. In that change was also the ability for them to grant airspace bylaw restrictions over public land under their control such as national parks, areas of special scientific interest, bird sanctuaries etc etc. This ability does not extend to applications made by any private person, company or charitable foundation. The only bylaws that would be applicable and override current CAA jurisdiction are those made by local councils that apply to specific areas of public land. The national trust know this and also know their 1965 bylaw they have relied upon for the last 56 years is woefully out of date, impractical and also unenforceable given the current regulations.
If NT ever try to enforce the conveyance clause against a drone, just ask why they don’t enforce it against overflying manned aircraft.
Because they operate at a height that doesn’t prevent the normal enjoyment of their land.
That’s a trespass issue, nothing to do with the bye-law.
OK, this is a minefield. I may have to retract a lot of what I’ve said and understood to be factual. This is from a legal help website…
You also own, and have rights in the airspace above your property; however, these rights are limited. There are two types of airspace – the lower and upper stratums.
This is the airspace immediately above/around the land. Interference with this air space would affect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. You can prevent people from interfering with or intruding on this airspace. For instance, projecting eaves or advertising signs, and tower cranes being used for construction work on neighbouring land but which swing across your airspace.
This is the airspace which exists above the height which is reasonably acceptable and necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land by its owner – around 500 to 1000 feet above roof space level (Section 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982). Landowners have no greater rights to this airspace than any other member of the public.
This is going to take some further reading and correspondence to sift through the various pieces of information available.
The above is broadly right except that the “around 500 to 1000 feet” figure has no basis in current legislation. The current version is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16/section/76
You can fly over anyone’s land without being accused of trespass so long as the height is “reasonable”, and without being accused of nuisance so long as you don’t disturb the landowner’s use and enjoyment of their land.
Both trespass and nuisance are civil matters so nothing to do with the NT bye-laws.
Thanks for that kvetner. I think perhaps I was reading too much into it. Sometimes Google can be your downfall as well as your saviour 
Just to advise. Bylaws are civil matters. It only becomes criminal if the suspect refuses to co operate with the victim (NT in this instance), such as refusing to obey the bylaw when told to obey it; ie leave when trespassing. At such point it is expected the police would be called and if they have to intervene AND take the suspect away and charged, then it is a criminal offence. Of course, I’m no expert on police matters, but Bylaws are definitely civil offenses if dealt without police intervention.
Also, since reasonable is a figure equivalent to infinity, no matter if you fly around the edges of the property at 400ft or not, if the landowner says it is unreasonable then you really have no grounds.
Again, this thread really has been answered. It’s best to fly elsewhere otherwise the question why is it so important you have to fly over NT property arises. There are lots of other areas to fly over with just as much photographic beauty.
Just like every other time anyone complains about anything, they’ll file this away and forget about it. And then no doubt whinge next time someone tries to fly over one of their properties: “Our policy for drone flying is on our website.” There’s a couple of properties near me that I’m going to try and get to at some point with my Air 2 - hopefully I won’t be accosted!
Nice word Phil.
“figure equivalent to infinity”
Reasonable =
…sound judgement; fair and sensible
…based on *good sense
@ Kvetner is correct
(1)No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, … is reasonable, … Air Navigation Order …duly complied with
I can fly my aircraft over NT property above 500ft (even lower in circuit, approach etc.) without their permission.
I’m amazed how much research everyone has done on this subject. It really is outstanding in it’s entirety.
I still think the main issues are going to be public response. Most people, including myself, go to these places for peace and quiet as much as for the beautiful surroundings. People will complain.
Individuals have livestock on NT land. I fly my gliders over livestock and get no response. My Drones alert them instantly. Flying over NT land you couldn’t guarantee not disturbing stock or wildlife, into a potential injury or death situation.
Advances in ultra lightweight technology may one day produce a silent drone. I for one won’t hold my breath until that happens though.
I did make enquiries as to why at one of my Slope Soaring sites on NT property, we are allowed judicious use of a motor glider. Seems it’s a case of who you know. Officialy motors are not permitted. The money donation to the Trust may have had some influence. The other NT site I fly Gliders at, won’t allow motor gliders at all.
If that’s the case then why was this thread even started? Go fly to your hearts content. If nothing happens I stand corrected and bow to your knowledge and expertise. If its the opposite, choices and consequences. Accept the consequences of your choices. As someone who enforces the law, I know what my choice would be. Again, I ask, why is it imperative and so important you HAVE / MUST fly over NT property? Personally that would arouse a lot of security red flags. And I am referring to drones with cameras not gliders, manned aircraft etc, which I believe is why this thread actually started.
End of the day there are x amount of drone users and there will be x amount of different opinions and interpretations of the laws, rules and regulations. All that matters is what the judge decides should it ever come to that.
@Nismo , same for me, WMSA is a NT location, we are allowed to fly our gliders, now allowed to use the prop judiciously to allow safe positioning and landing. I was originally told to have an elastic band around the prop so it couldn’t be used… 
Perhaps the massive amount of land they have custody of eg the Peak District ?
Probably full membership and have to request permission for each flight!!
Even so, I’d take that as an option!!
I think the reason for starting this thread was to discuss the potential for permission to fly over NT land. How many changes to the Law have resulted from public campaigns. Quite a few I imagine. I’m just adding my input from a personal view.
Interestingly, the NT stated that the flying of model gliders at the Hole of Horcum created a public interest and had a positive impact on visitor numbers. I could not see myself travelling to watch a drone being used for filming. I think there has to be something in it for them and something that doesn’t cause them to have to deal with complaints.
Maybe a more direct approach is needed. Such as a statement outlining why they don’t allow Drones to be flown, yet.?
That at least would be a starting point for a campaign.