I’ve just had an interesting discussion with a litigation solicitor friend. This was just a friendly discussion.
If a private dwelling stands within a 1 acre say plot, and the nearest boundary to the building is more than 150m away, would I be breaking any CAA laws if I was stood on public land outside the property boundary, and flew my drone so that it crossed the property boundary by say 10 metres at a height of say 5 metres? The land I would overfly is just empty ground.
I didn’t think this would be a problem because, let’s face it, we are actually doing this every time we take off because every piece of ground is owned by someone.
His argument was that if I erected a crane, the jib would not be allowed to cross the vertical boundary of the property without express permission from the owner.
The key bit here.
No, you wouldn’t. No more than a helicopter pilot would if they flew over the property without express permission from the owner.
You might well be open to being sued though, as at just 5m altitude you would evidently be affecting the owner`s enjoyment of their property. At 50m, where the drone is probably almost inaudible, it may be much more difficult to prove a tort. Consider that the burden of proof is lower in civil cases compared with criminal ones. Something similar was discussed on a video on The Blackbelt Barrister’s YouTube channel, IIRC.
Were you to cause the propertyholder distress (which is likely), your flight might be considered reckless, which would be an offence.
As with most legal what-ifs, the only definitive answer will be delivered by a court.
We don’t all do this every time we take off. We take off where it’s allowed and, myself, I first fly high enough that no one would think it’s a prying nuisance before moving horizontally. That height may be a few metres but it’s a conscious decision.
At 5m you’re firmly in privacy violation - and this could be argued but you’d likely lose - if anyone flew a drone at 15’ above my garden, we’d defo have words!! Don’t do it!!
An overhanging crane jib or part is a genuine safety/insurance issue and requires explicit permission, same for over sailing scaffolding - these are different issues but at 5m over someone else’s garden/land and where a house is clearly in view, one is solidly flying like a dick!
I don’t know about that. 5m height, yes. But 140m from the building?
Unless you really need to fly there, probably best not to…or just ask permission and explain why - probably be fine if you did 
To add my 2p worth into the pot
I love how people mix up their measurements in mid conversation.
1 acre is only about 65m along each edge (if it was a square), so the situation couldn’t arise 
57, size 9.
I think the heart of all these discussions comes down to something really simple: respect and consideration for the people around us.
Whatever the exact measurements or legal interpretations, our hobby only thrives when we blend into the environment without causing distress, annoyance, or a sense of intrusion. If people feel comfortable with what we’re doing, they tend to accept it, ask questions, and sometimes even get interested themselves. That’s how we keep the “social licence” to fly.
But if we push boundaries, fly in ways that make others uneasy, or rely on technicalities instead of courtesy, society will inevitably push back with complaints, restrictions, and tighter rules. None of us want that.
So for me, the guiding principle is straightforward: fly in a way that respects others first, and everything else tends to fall into place.
Very well said -
Thanks everyone. To be clear, I was not stating I was doing it. It was just an example of where the laws lie. Considering every square metre of land is owned by someone, we are doing this all the time. To put it another way, if I fly across a field at 5m height, am I breaking any laws? Obviously not, but where does the differentiation come between field or garden. The differences are obvious but maybe not so obvious in law. We all know the limits around people and buildings but flat open ground is less strict and more open to interpretation. Hence the difference between the crane and the drone. My solicitor friend does not rely on interpretation 
Regardless where I’m are straight up to at least 30 meters or above roof height and no one should poke their nose to what I’m doing
Had one git trying to accuse me of spying of his yard and tried to tell that I’m not allowed I’m simply told him to do one (in a polite manner) first thing for me are I’m legal and is there any flight restrictions if all these conditions are met then everyone can showe their opinions where sun don’t shine
But you’re assuming the acre is a square @milkmanchris. It could be a strip one mile long and 2515mm wide 
Perhaps I may throw something extra thoughts into this conversation please?
Are people not mixing up the law here.
-
Air space is controlled by the CAA - This relates to aircraft flying.
-
A crane is a structure be it a permanent of temporary structure.
Has this litigation lawyer looked at both aspects and not just trespass in law of property.
Under the latter it is customary to request and require a license to oversail someone’s land with a crane jib. This is based on something fix to the land and a physical structure.
An aircraft is not a permanent nor temporary structure.
Perhaps ask your litigation solicitor to consider the situation under aviation law as well as law of property - they will be 2 different areas of law and the lawyer may specialise in one and not the other.
You have of course raised an interesting point.
I wonder if anyone with expertise on these subject can give their opinion… Privacy is a whole area on its own. We should all be mindful of privacy of course.
everyone of us has a right to enjoy their privacy and we know trespassing is illegal…proven infringement or breach (as determined inside a court of law) for either offence will likely be penalised to some degree.
Someone flying at 5m above someone’s garden could (should the owner of the garden wish), be legitimately challenged on grounds of privacy infringement or trespass, or indeed both. That would depend on the nature of the flight or flights, flyers intention and evidence, and of course funds being available to put a case together within our legal framework.
The CAA control UK airspace of course but privacy infringement and trespass are totally different aspects of the law and would therefore be handled differently…and with little probability of involvement by the CAA.
An unintentional low flight over someone’s property would almost certainly result in little more than a private bollocking if the perp is identified but unless it’s for example Downing street or Buckingham Palace, there’s little to be concerned about here for any of us.
My usual flights involve ascending vertically from takeoff to about 90’, clear of trees and buildings, or higher if the location demands it. It feels safer up there where there are less things to bump into, and I’m well above any chance of bothering snyone on the ground or in a building, in fact in most circumstances most people on the ground won’t know the drone is there; the general public tend to look around themselves rather than upwards. If I want phots or vids that require me to come lower, I am very careful and fly very slowly, and like to be sure there are no overhanging branches or wires above me so that if I think I’m getting into trouble or too close to something I don’t want to hit, I can flip in S mode and go straight up until I can relax again!
You can probably tell I don’t do bandos… I think the above flying habits tick the boxes for safety and consideration for others, as well as any possible privacy issues. I’m not the world’s best pilot, and probably unusual among pilots in that I actually realise this (!), so like to give myself plenty of wobble room. And I still get the images I want!
Buck House is a Royal Residence, and therefore a permanent FRZ anyway! If someone were to claim that I’d flown low over their property enough to annoy them or disturb their enjoyment of said property, I should be able to prove (from Airdata) that I wasn’t!
Totally agreed - likewise
My ref to government/royal buildings was just to reinforce the point that certain owners may have substantially stronger rationale and funds to bring any infringement to the law, however trivial or innocent that may have seem to the flyer. Flying in an FRZ is just lunacy
Without seeking prior permission, lots of us have flown very legally with correct permissions.
you know what I meant in context…
The term you are looking for is oversailing.