Protecting rural estates from drones and trespass

“[T]he house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress as well for the defence against injury and violence, as for his repose”. Though Sir Edward Coke penned these words in 1604, the desire for privacy and self-containment, a frequent driving force in rural estate purchases, still rings true today.

Threats to a landowner’s privacy have traditionally come from trespass: ramblers straying off public footpaths, protestors making a stand, or vandals causing damage. Social media is making it increasingly easy to share information too; a private security team had to be brought in to protect Drayton House in Northamptonshire (the setting for the film Saltburn) after TikTok posts shared information about how to get to the property from public footpaths, causing a spate of trespasses.

The threat of trespass now comes from the sky too. The use of drones is becoming more common and rural estates are a particular magnet for drone users seeking aerial footage of grand houses, historic sites and areas of natural beauty. How is the law evolving to deal with these new trends?

What happened in Anglo International?

The 2023 case of Anglo International Upholland Ltd v Wainwright concerned a 320-acre estate owned by the claimant, which included a large, dilapidated seminary built in the 1880s. The defendants (Mr Wainwright and persons unknown) trespassed regularly and flew drones over the seminary, taking photographs which were then posted on social media, in turn encouraging further trespass. Some of the trespassers also took to camping in the seminary and even ringing the bells. The claimant had well-founded concerns about the risks the building posed to them; it was in an extremely unstable condition and had experienced several recent collapses. The claimant was, no doubt, also aware of his potential liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984; this requires landowners to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of trespassers. He had spent significant sums – approximately £260,000 annually – on securing the site, including erecting a two-and-a-half-meter fence and employing security guards. But that did not deter the trespassers, and the claimant resorted to seeking an injunction against Mr Wainwright and the persons unknown to prevent them entering the site and flying drones over it.

The availability of injunctions against persons unknown is a recent development. It was confirmed in a case in November 2023 in which an injunction was obtained by a landowner against trespass by gypsies and travellers. It can be useful in this sort of situation, where it may be impossible to identify the transgressors, but action is needed to prevent similar, future trespass.

In the Anglo International case, the judge accepted that a drone was, for these purposes, an aircraft and considered section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act. This section provides that there is no actionable trespass by reason only of the flight of an aircraft, where the height is reasonable in all the circumstances. Here, however, the court concluded that whilst the simple act of flying the drone was not itself trespass, the use to which the drone was put during the flight was a problem. Flying the drone at a height from which photographs and videos could be taken, which were then used to facilitate and encourage further trespasses was sufficient to constitute a trespass. On that basis, the court granted an interim injunction against Mr Wainwright and the persons unknown, preventing them from entering the site and banning drone flights over it for two years.

What can landowners do to stop drone trespass?

Where landowners are concerned about drone activity, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) offers guidance. The CAA sets out when flyer and operator ID is required (whether there is a camera on board makes a difference) and also publish the Drone and Model Aircraft Code. The Code makes the following provisions, which may assist a landowner in judging what is reasonable:

• Drones should not fly higher than 120 meters from the ground.
• Generally, drones should not fly within 50m of people horizontally (including those in vehicles and buildings) and must not fly over people in the 50m no-fly zone, regardless of height (there are qualifications to this, based on drone size and skill level of the operator). The rules do not apply to family and friends.
• Drones cannot be flown over crowds, such as festivals or sporting events.
• Drone users need the landowner’s permission to enter private property, for take-off and landing.

Where drone activity appears to be breaching the Code, or as in the Anglo International case, the flying is within the law, but is being used for unacceptable purposes, landowners may consider taking the following steps as a precursor to more formal action:

1. Identify what is attached to the drone. Can you see a camera? Can you find any footage being uploaded online? These could be evidentiary points to argue the drone use is not “reasonable”.
2. If photographs or videos are shared online, what is their purpose? Is it simply a one-off post showing the natural beauty of a property? Or are specific points of interest being targeted, with regular videos being posted with a description of how access can be obtained?
3. Keep a diary of any trespass that has occurred and any associated loss or damage. Have incidents become more frequent since drone activity has increased? Are you having to spend more on means to prevent against trespass, such as fencing, CCTV, alarms and manned security?

Although landowners are unlikely to obtain injunctions to prevent the routine passage of future Amazon deliveries, say, or one-off use by private individuals, the situation is different where the use becomes targeted and what happens in the sky impacts what happens on the ground. As drone use increases, cases like Anglo International are likely to become more common and landowners may need to defend their privacy on frontiers that Sir Edward could have only dreamed of.

This article is part of the Rural Estates Newsletter 2025, click here to read.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, February 2025