Is it acceptable to raise a further request in the Freedom of Information Act by an individual in respect of a questionable reply which has already been posted by a particular Council, where it appears that the banning of drones was added on the end of a relatively old bylaw prior to when drones were introduced as a recreational and business item. If it had just been added at a later date there would have to be a proper process for the council to follow.
Would it be reasonable to request proof of that consultation process.
Maxpower.
5 Likes
Nowt stopping you putting in a FOI, go for it.
1 Like
Absolutely!!!
2 Likes
As above, please do 
If they’re trying to prevent drone flights with dodgy paperwork we should absolutely question it.
Do you want to share the council name or a link to our original FOI?
2 Likes
I have been reading through some of the Councils FOI replies to Grey Arrows requests and find in some cases they are being economical on the information they provide.
I would like to address in particular the one from Greenwich Council.
Firstly in their reply then make the statement that their Bylaws are NOT DATED.
Question is that legal.?
They then give a link to their “current” Bylaws for Open Spaces, which are NOT DATED but Refer to the previous BYLAWS (dated 18th April 1997) being revoked.
No information as to HOW and WHAT procedure/consultations were given as to when they were REVOKED and the new current one along with the dated details of consultation/procedure were implement and ratified.
Question are they legal?
Reading through the current undated Pleasure Grounds,Parks and Open Spaces Bylaws I find that there are no specific references to the use of Drones, possibly because at the time the Bylaws were written Drones were hardly seen let alone present a problem.
Question. when were they included in the Bylaws and was it done legally through the proper consultation process.
Its possible they are using the Bylaw that restricts the use of Model Aircraft.
I quote the specific Bylaw:
Model Aircraft
28 No person shall without the consent of the Council, cause any POWER-DRIVEN model aircraft to:
(a) take off or otherwise be released for flight or control the flight of such an aircraft in the ground:or
(b) land in the ground without reasonable excuse.
Under the Interpretation (IN THE BYLAWS) of the definition for model aircraft “POWER-DRIVEN” is defined as being driven by the combustion of petrol vapour or other combustable substance.
NO REFERENCE IS MADE TO ELECTRICAL POWER.
This again points to the BYLAWS predating the introduction of Drones and that they have most probably tagged them on the end. thereby having no legal standing.
It is my belief that the Information provided under the FOI Act is as stated less than economical with the truth along with the failure to provide the full information is not meeting the requirements of the FOI Act and needs to be revisited.
I welcome any comments and whether anyone thinks its worth pursuing.
Maxpower.
1 Like
Always worth a follow up if just to waste their time on something we all know the answer to
1 Like
That applies to the entire UK - not just Greenwich and is a basic requirement for all outdoors drone flights.
… confirmation that there is no other document that prohibits flying a drone in said area exists 
3 Likes
… was your point - my point was that the ANO applies to every drone flight and therefore not relevant to this discussion which is about bye-laws and/or any other legal restrictions that may apply solely to Greenwich.
Permissions can be sought and gained for flights in many FRZs.
3 Likes
Hi I’ve actually sent a FOI request to the RoyalBorough Greenwich which includes that question within it. I can’t seem to attach a copy to the message. Is there any other way I can send you a copy.
Sorry if it muddies the water at all. But my request is from an individual not GA.
1 Like
Don’t forget to exclude Greenwich Park. That’s a Royal Park which has it’s own regulations and legislation. The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 not only forbid drones, but kites as well!
As long as you are flying within the CAA rules then you wont be endagering person or property.
2 Likes
Royal Greenwich Council efforts to ban droning.
Those of you who have been following my efforts with the above Council will know how they have been very evasive or economical with the truth.
My previous posting, confirmed that the previous Bylaw they submitted was ONLY a draft which is not only misleading but an actual offence under Bylaw regulations, It has since been withdrawn . But there’s stll contentious issues around their evasiveness.
I recently sought further and specific clarification,
Posted below is a coy of my recent FOI Request and their reply.
It actual now CONFIRMS they DO NOT have a bylaw preventing drone flying.
However they have chosen to be evasive about their “Rule” which bans Drone flying in their Parks. when I raised the question of it being Lawful, they have dodged the answer and suggested I take legal advice.
Can someone now take up the cudgel and write to them separately under FOI Act about the legality of such a “RULE” banning drones and seek a Yes/No answer from them as to how (Under what legislation) it has been imposed and by what means it is enforced.
Max
I’m having problems attaching a document. How do I go about it
You asked earlier, see your other post for the answer:
As the landowner/manager, they can put any rule they want in, and ask you to leave should they catch you breaking it. Its the same as me banning people from camping on my front lawn (as a random example).
The difference between a rule and a bylaw is enforcement.
Bylaw breaches are dealt with using FPNs or magistrates.
For a rule breaker, they’d have to go down the civil trespass route.
Thanks for the reply, I share the same sentiments, however I am trying to tie them down and prevent any confusion, a member on here has done us all a great service by addressing the matter of bylaws, I have cleared up the double talk by Greenwich Council and their evasiveness, so that it’s clear where you can legally fly, it’s just for further clarity for others who may be put off by the RULE. Just asking if someone could take up clarification of it on behalf of the club members. Don’t leave it all to one person to deal with, it’s to everyone’s benefit .
I’d suggest you fly if you wish and let them be the ones to take legal advice should they wish to take action against you.
1 Like
it is sometimes better to apologise than ask permission.
It is sometimes better to apologise than ask permission
Understanding the Phrase
The phrase “it is sometimes better to apologise than ask for permission” suggests that in certain situations, taking action without prior approval can lead to quicker results. This approach is often associated with environments that prioritise speed and innovation, particularly in fast-paced industries like technology and startups. The underlying philosophy encourages individuals to act decisively and address any fallout afterward, rather than getting bogged down by bureaucratic processes.
Contextual Application
-
Innovation and Agility: In sectors where rapid innovation is crucial, waiting for permission can stifle creativity and slow down progress. For example, a software developer might implement a new feature based on user feedback without waiting for extensive approvals. If the feature proves beneficial, the organization can adapt; if not, they can apologize and make adjustments.
-
Empowerment of Employees: Allowing employees to take initiative fosters a culture of empowerment. When team members feel they have the autonomy to make decisions, it can lead to increased morale and job satisfaction. However, this must be balanced with accountability—if an action leads to negative consequences, an apology may be necessary.
-
Risk Management: In some cases, the risks associated with inaction (e.g., losing a competitive edge) may outweigh the potential repercussions of acting without permission. For instance, launching a marketing campaign quickly might capture market interest before competitors do. If it turns out poorly, an apology can help mitigate any backlash.
-
Cultural Considerations: The effectiveness of this approach can vary significantly across different cultural contexts. In Western cultures that value individualism and assertiveness, this mindset may be more readily accepted compared to collectivist cultures where consensus and harmony are prioritized.
-
Strategic Decision-Making: While there are benefits to acting first and apologizing later, it’s essential to assess each situation carefully. Not all decisions warrant this approach; significant organizational changes or actions affecting multiple stakeholders should still involve seeking permission to ensure alignment and minimize risks.
Conclusion
In summary, while there are scenarios where it may be advantageous to apologise rather than seek permission—especially in fast-moving environments—this strategy should be applied judiciously. Understanding when to act independently versus when to consult others is key to effective decision-making