Inter-tidal zone ownership

[QDMQDMQDM]

I am very taken by beaches. Who actually owns the inter-tidal zone? Can I land there without permission?

[Justiciar]

Most of the foreshore - between low and high tides - is owned by the Crown.

[Norfolk Newbie]

Most of the foreshore - between low and high tides - is owned by the Crown.


Does the Queen respond personally to PPRs?:p

[Nipper2]

Strictly speaking, I think you will find that anything below the line of mean high water spring tides is owned by the crown.

I have landed several times in helicopters (as a passenger) on beaches above the high water mark while waiting for yachts to conduct aerial photography. As I remember it, the pilot always 'checked the oil' or something similar. We never heard a peep from anyone about it.

The 500 foot rule does of course apply. The CAA have prosecuted in several instances.....

[QDMQDMQDM]

Interesting. I was at Saunton Sands today. The Christie Estates, which I presume owns the beach above the high tide mark, has a sign up prohibiting land yachts, dune buggies etc and threatening a £2,000 fine and future bans on vehicular access to the beach for miscreants.

Of course, a land yacht does not fly and has to be conveyed across the upper beach to the intertidal zone, where it then races up and down. If it was dropped miraculously from the sky below the high tide mark, I guess there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

This might explain how the RAF manages to land Hercules on Saunton Sands.

Does the Crown, in practice, care if you land on one of its beaches? Can it prohibit it? We don't seek permission from the Crown every time we go for a stroll along a beach, after all.

Where's Flying Lawyer when you need him?

QDM

[gcolyer]

while waiting for yachts to conduct aerial photography


How do yachts conduct aerial photography?????:bored:

[BlueRobin]

Some is Crown/MoD, a lot of the remaining is National Trust and the Duchy of Cornwall owns a surprising amount.

[skydriller]

Most of the foreshore - between low and high tides - is owned by the Crown.The Christie Estates, which I presume owns the beach above the high tide mark, has a sign up prohibiting land yachts, dune buggies etc and threatening a £2,000 fine and future bans on vehicular access to the beach for miscreants.

When I was a lad the old man managed a farm on the south coast which included a beach. I seem to remember that access was strictly private and included the beach/foreshore down to the water line, be it high or low tide. This sticks in my mind specifically because it was apparently different from the normal law regarding access to coastal land in just a few places around the UK, obviously including that estate.

Regards, SD..

[Nipper2]

gcolyer......

As my 13-year old would say, "It's obvious stupid". You sit on your yacht and point the camera at every passing helicopter.

Or am I missing something?

(Please ensure irony sensor is switched on before reading this post).

[scooter boy]

QDM, I think the answer is - it depends who is looking!:E

Choice of the right deserted stretch and timing would also be key.

BTW, if you took your doggie along they would then have 2 things to complain about!!

SB

[QDMQDMQDM]

QDM, I think the answer is - it depends who is looking!

Choice of the right deserted stretch and timing would also be key.

BTW, if you took your doggie along they would then have 2 things to complain about!!

SB,

I think that's it really. An early morning landing and photo opportunity when no-one is about is hardly likely to excite much interest. Anyway, there's always that loose, flapping cowling. It's really annoying and sometimes you have to land to relatch it.

Nice beaches down Perranporth and Hayle way too.

QDM

[Whirlybird]

I don't have time to check LASORS or anything, but surely the 500 ft rule won't apply so long as you land?

[QDMQDMQDM]

Whirly, I think the 500 ft rule applies only to licenced aerodromes. I think they can even nail you on the 500 foot rule for approaches to farm strips if they want to.

[BackPacker]

Being curious, I took out my air law book.

"In order that an aircraft can legally get airborne, and land again, the 500 ft rule does not apply to aircraft taking-off and landing 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'".

"None of the Rule 5 provisions apply to an aircraft taking off, landing, or practicing approaches to land at a Government (military) aerodrome or a licensed aerodrome (again in accordance with 'normal aviation practice')"

"Practice approaches at an unlicensed airfield are subject to Rule 5 and so, for practical purposes, are prohibited." [...] "However, the CAA has in the past stated that an approach to an unlicensed airfield need not end in a landing if the approach is made to assess turbulence or crosswind, to inspect the surface condition, or to check for obstructions and slope." "However the 1000 ft provision should be considered as applying to aircraft taking off and landing at an unlicensed aerodrome."

So the way I see it: at a licensed aerodrome none of the low-flying rules apply as long as you apply "normal aviation practice". At an unlicensed aerodrome (or, I presume, a beach???) all the low-flying rules apply, except the 500 ft rule, provided that you are landing, taking off, or performing an approach to assess the conditions of the landing area.

You still need to have permission of the owner of the beach though.

[HuskyDog]

The title to the foreshore, that is from high water to low water mark, and the seabed to the limit of territorial waters, is in general vested in the Crown and is managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. About half the foreshore in the United Kingdom remains vested in the Crown.
It would be a trespass to use the foreshore as a landing strip. However the ownership of the Crown is subject to the general public right of access for navigation and fishing. By analogy with the right of navigation it would be permissible to land on a beach in an emergency and to remain there for a reasonable time. It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Members of the public may have right of access to the foreshore for the purpose of fishing or recreation, but the foreshore is not a public right of way.
The foreshore is managed by the Marine Estates Division of the Crown Agents, but is very likely to refuse any permission sought for fear of creating a precedent.
So the upshot for anyone proposing to land on a beach without the permission of the owner, the landing may be a trespass. Rule 5 applies but if it is a genuine approach with a view to landing then there will be no breach by coming within 500 feet of a person vessel or structure. Other persons may have a right to be on the foreshore and any approach or landing may place them in jeopardy and thus render the pilot liable to prosecution for reckless endangerment, as happened on one occasion last year.
:=

[QDMQDMQDM]

It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.

Why do you think that is less likely?

Anyway, there are generally few people around on a beach at 6am, over two miles from the nearest road access. There are greater sins, although you never know what might happen to you in Britain today.

[Piltdown Man]

Husky - I'm not trying to be patronising, but what a superb reply! I am now more eDjuMacated than I was before. Thank you.

PM.

[ProfChrisReed]

<quote>
Quote:
It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Why do you think that is less likely?</quote>

Because one of the defences to an action for trespass is that of necessity for the purposes of saving life, preventing injury and (possibly) preserving property. As a gliding lawyer who is an occasional visitor to fields with my aircraft, I felt the need to check this out. In theory (never tested in court) this might mean that there is no obligation to pay for damage caused by an emergency landing, though I suspect this is overridden by the strict liability provisions of the ANO. In practice, of course I pay for any crop damage (and offer the farmer a flight) because it would be rude and churlish not to do so.

Where there is a public right of way, that permits the public to "pass and repass" along it, but not e.g. to stand still and demonstrate on it. Landing an aircraft has not, so far as I know, been exmined by the courts in relation to rights of way, but it doesn't feel like passing and repassing.

Even if landing in an emergency were a trespass, this is the last thing I'd worry about. Land if possible, crash as safely as you can if not, and then leave the insurance company to deal with any claims by the landowner.

[QDMQDMQDM]

However the ownership of the Crown is subject to the general public right of access for navigation and fishing. By analogy with the right of navigation it would be permissible to land on a beach in an emergency and to remain there for a reasonable time. It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. What is the 'right of navigation'? Why is landing an aircraft not in an emergency different to walking on a beach not in an emergency? Why does 'navigation' apply to being on foot for a gentle afternoon stroll to take the airs, but in an aircraft only in an emergency?

I ask merely for information.

[HuskyDog]

The answer to QDM's question is that the law in this area is based solely on custom derived from ancient usage. The right of navigation is different from any right of access enjoyed by a section of the public. The right of navigation extends only to ships. Any customary right of access for fishermen or a section of the public, for example to dry nets or take cockles, will be a right of access on foot only, not in vehicles. There could be no customary right to drive a dune buggy, or land an aircraft, on a beach. So I probably overstated the position in saying that it was arguable that there could be a right to land, other than in an emergency.

The best legal advice is that you should never place yourself in a position where you need your legal advice to be right.:=

[QDMQDMQDM]

The best legal advice is that you should never place yourself in a position where you need your legal advice to be right.

I take that to mean, among other things:

"Don't get caught."

:-)

[ProfChrisReed]

The simple answer to QDMQDMQDM (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=53496)'s question is that rights of way/rights of usage are almost always limited in some way. Thus a footpath is for use on foot (or bizarrely by bicycle), but not on horseback or by motor vehicle. The right of way on a public road is for foot, horses, bicycles, cars etc, but not (I think) for hovercraft. And so on. My neighbour has a right of way over a small part of my garden, but no-one else has.

Thus for a beach between high and low watermark (and I haven't researched this, nor do I intend to do so!), there might be a general right of access on foot for everyone, rights of access for launching fishing boats limited to particular householders who have exercised those rights long enough to acquire them, rights of access for fishing for members of the Worshipful Company of Cocklers (Morecambe Bay branch but not other members) etc. etc. On some beaches there may, for historical reasons, be no rights for anyone but the landowner.

This is because most English law is not based on some theoretically coherent code (cf. France and Germany), but instead on legal recognition of particular examples, some of which then become codified in legislation. So if you ask a lawyer, "Can I land on a beach", he or she will reply "Which beach?" and then make a living by researching for you the law about that particular beach.

I believe that in Scots law there is a general right of access to unenclosed land, on which the new English law right to roam was based. However, only a Scots lawyer could tell us if beaches fall under this law, and if so whether roaming on them with an aircraft is or is not a trespass.

As I posted above, in an emergency all this ceases to apply, though I wouldn't care to say whether landing next to a nuclear power station would be forgiven on grounds of emergency. :sad: or if you hit it, :eek:

[Fuji Abound]

I believe that in Scots law there is a general right of access to unenclosed land

When I did some float flying in Scotland last year I was told all the lochs are public property and you could land on any of them .. .. ..

we did on quite a few.

Whether the same is true of scottish beaches I dont know, but it would seem logical.

Wtih floats it makes me wonder if the position is any different if you land on the water just off the beach.

[scooter boy]

Fuji,
Although the Scottish Lochs are stunningly beautiful there are large differences in population density between the pretty bits of Scotland (mainly very sparsely populated except Loch Lomond in the summer) and the south coast of England. Most of the Scottish populus live in and around the central belt and as soon as you get north of the Trossachs there is almost nobody around - which is probably why it is so unspoilt up there.

The other reason why you didn't get reported may have been that it was too cold, wet and windy to hold a damp pen to a blowing, soggy piece of paper in a frozen hand long enough to get your registration down! :E

Stereotypes, moi?

SB

[Fuji Abound]

The other reason why you didn't get reported may have been that it was too cold, wet and windy to hold a damp pen to a blowing, soggy piece of paper in a frozen hand long enough to get your registration down!

True, very true.

One loch we landed on was a three hour hike from the nearest track, and the hot chocolate brewed on the shore was most welcome.

Mind I wasnt condoning the landing on lakes etc just told that was the way it was in Scotland - doubt you would find any lochs in southern England and for that matter any water not owned by someone with other ideas about how it should be used :bored: .

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I recall correctly, the trespass laws are quite different in England and Scotland.

In England you need landowners permission, in Scotland the landowner must have specifically excluded you (hence there are far more hiking options in Scotland).

G

[QDMQDMQDM]

Watch for a suitably anonymous (location-wise) photo in the coming weeks and months.

What is life without a little harmless derring-do?