https://www.reddit.com/r/nationaltrust/s/B90TpGREJn
I posted this. I’ve going to send an email to them too. But maybe some upvotes on the Reddit post might help get some good attention.
3 Likes
For the non Reddit users
Dear National Trust Policy Team,
I am writing to you as a long-time supporter of the National Trust and an avid aerial photographer. While I fully appreciate the Trust’s current “no fly” stance to protect the tranquility and wildlife of our heritage sites, I believe there is a middle ground that could benefit both the Trust and the hobbyist community.
I would like to propose the adoption of a “Scheduled Hobbyist Access” framework. Rather than a blanket ban, this policy would allow registered pilots with valid CAA IDs and insurance to book specific “Tranquility Windows”—pre-defined slots outside of peak visitor hours. This approach would ensure that the visitor experience remains undisturbed while providing a controlled, legal way for photographers to capture the beauty of Trust locations.
Implementing a streamlined online booking system with capped numbers would allow the Trust to: Manage impact: Limit flights to times and zones that do not disturb nesting wildlife or quiet enjoyment. Ensure safety: Require proof of insurance and registration as a prerequisite for any flight. Foster community: Turn hobbyists into digital ambassadors who share the Trust’s beauty with a wider audience.
I truly believe that by moving toward a “permitted by schedule” model, the Trust can maintain its core mission of conservation while modernizing its engagement with the public.
Thank you for your time and for all the work you do to preserve our national heritage
6 Likes
I have a strong suspicion that, if adopted, the trust will monetize the procedure -say normal admission fee plus £25 admin charge per flight …
3 Likes
@7coloursummer Great effort and good luck, Mike. I suspect it will fall, once more, on deaf ears. 
1 Like
If you’re bored grab a few coffees and catch up on this, its been done before with no effect
4 Likes
Good document, well written, I hope there are some sensible responses from NT. As I live near a great deal of land in their control it would make it easier to fly over some of the more remote areas. currently toal from my home and fly over theirs!
3 Likes
The GADC @Committee also tried 
1 Like
Cheers all for the info. Maybe third time a charm, or maybe they’ve had a change of staff and have someone with a more open view point.
I won’t hold my breath but gotta be in it to win it.
1 Like
Eloquently put. One of the difficulties of opening the flood gates is what parameters would have to be in place, ie max minimum height, flying time, areas off limits, times of years, ie nesting and / or peak visitor times etc. It’ll be interesting to hear.
I suspect that these sorts of blanket bans by quangos come about something like this (back about 10 years ago when droneflying started to become popular); ‘boss, there’s a bloke on the phone here wants to know if he can fly a drone over our land, can he?’ ‘Dunno, phone legal’ (phones legal and asks the same question), legal comes back with ‘Hell no, those things are dangerous, what if one fell on somebody and there was (horror of horrors) a claim against us!’.
Cue memo to all departments/offices/sites, draconian-looking ‘no drone’ signs tgat are meningless threats up everywhere, and an entrenched policy that is now very difficult to challenge or remove. The quango will simply parrot the standard policy response ‘safe and undisturbed enjoyment/protection of wildlife/public liability’ stuff, already covered by the CAA. Anything that requires a policy change will be rejected out of hand, feasible or not, because change is bad, m’kay, and it’s much easier to carry on as we are, wspecially as it’s policy…
Your suggestion sounds eminently sensible and workable to me, 7coloursummer, but sensible and workable is not what NT are looking for!
3 Likes
That sounds like a great suggestion and you should always suggest an alternative when protesting but unfortunately you’re dealing with pseudo civil servants here and they will always take the easier option. Main issue is their pay doesn’t change for solving problems - there’s no real incentive to make things better so hard to motivate anyone. Maybe if we could get someone elected onto their board…..
That detail would be site based, assuming this gets past stage 1.
1 Like
At the end of the day the NT are just a registered charity and not an enforcement body. Their policies don’t mean jack shit to anyone wanting to fly over their land/properties from a public place.
1 Like
I have been in conversation with the local NT manager who tells me that permits to fly can be had, but they would need to be specific in all the information required. worth a shot I would suggest.
1 Like
If the NTS can do it, I’m sure the NT can find a way.
1 Like
No thanks! Let’s stick with the status quo - don’t TOAL from their property and they can’t do anything about it.
Access agreements such as those proposed, if even adopted, frequently end up being overly bureaucratic, and/or expensive, and/or unworkable. We don’t need to make rods for our own backs. Be careful what you wish for!
3 Likes
Indeed…Why give them the false sense they have some kind of authority over any member of the public.
3 Likes
That would be the case, Jen, regardless of their intention(s) to authorise (at a cost or otherwise) flights with a TOAL within their land ownership boundaries.
Let 'em get on with it, I’d say, and good luck to anyone who could avail themselves of such opportunities! 
They came back to me today, response below. Kind of what a lot of you expected.
Also feels like you could read between the lines, they can’t police it, so…
#dontBeADick
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your email considering our drone access policy. I am sorry it has taken a while to respond, we have had several staff on leave over the Easter period and wanted to give full consideration to your proposal.
Our policy team have now had the chance to review your proposal and consider increasing access for drone users. Whilst the proposal is attractive and we are always looking to enhance access opportunities we feel that the practicalities of running such a scheme would outweigh the benefits. It is a good idea but would obviously need monitoring and this would add an extra burden on our already stretched countryside staff. The cost of administration would be prohibitive and once we start licencing any activity, we take on an element of implied liability which would also make this a difficult proposal to consider.
We are always looking to review and update our policies, and we really liked your proposal. We can see how it would be attractive to the hobbyist drone community, but we don’t feel that we can take it any further at the present time.
Many thanks for your interest in helping the National Trust.
Marie Richardson
Land & Nature Enquiries Mailbox
4 Likes
Thanks for the update @7coloursummer - have you any more 360 videos to post?