I don't want to turn this into a spat but.....
At no time have I referred to the low flying rules. The 1000ft above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is an Instrument Flight Rule and nothing to do with rule 5.
I'm afraid that rule 29 - the Minimum height rule and, yes, one of the IFRs - does have something to do with rule 5. Rule 29 says you always have to comply with rule 5 too. It also says that you do not have to maintain 1000ft obstacle/terrain clearance "if it is
necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land". We each may have an interpretation of what would be neccessary - I guess the only person who really gets to make that judgement is a judge in court - but in my view descending, effectively en-route, in order to make a visual approach is not necessary.
You will find in the AIP that Enroute navigation aids are listed in the Enroute section. Approach nav aids are listed in the appropriate aerodrome section. Where for example a VOR is used as both enroute and aerodrome approach aid, this is noted in the enroute and aerodrome sections.
Again it's an interpretation of words but rule 40 refers to "restrictions and appropriate procedures" and unless the AIP explicitly says "thou shalt NOT" it is not a restriction. And as far as I know at the moment there is no such explicit limitation on the use of navaids.
For what it is worth the AIP does say (page AD 1-1-18 if anyone cares)
Aerodromes without published Instrument Approach Procedures
For an aircraft landing at an aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure either:
a A descent should be made in VMC until in visual contact with the ground, then fly to the destination;
b An IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown and proceed as in (a); or
c If neither (a) nor (b) is possible, first obtain an accurate fix and then descend not lower than 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5 nm (8 km) of the aircraft. If visual contact (as at (a) above) has not been established at this height, the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.
Strangely enough, I am fairly familiar with flight checking requirements and I agree there's a good reason for all of the checks....but that doesn't mean there isn't a loophole in the legislative framework at present.