Who owns airspace, and why can't they charge?

[xrayalpha]

Hi all,

Question, prompted by this news article. Who owns airspace, and anyone know the statutes that allow aircraft to use it free of charge?

Apparently the legal doctrine on ownership is: a coelo usque ad centrum

It may seem a moot point, but in Germany wind farm owners are suing each other for "stealing" the wind!

If charging for flights comes in then why shouldn't land owners benefit too! (and GPS technology would give precise locations!!)

Very best,

XA

Cough up for air!








http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/EN//TH1_241200831en24balcony.jpg
BIGGER: The extension to the balcony that has cost its owner dearly for encroaching on the city’s airspace. Picture: GREG MACVEAN
View Gallery (javascript: ViewGallery();)


By GARETH EDWARDS


IT seems that absolutely everything in Edinburgh has a price – even the air we breathe.

A resident who managed to secure planning permission to build a balcony has been hit with an unexpected bill from the city council – for 0.54 square metres of the stuff.

In what could be first case of its kind in Edinburgh, Lawrence Cassidy will have to pay £2500 because the extension on his Grove Street property is an "encroachment" into airspace overlooking the West Approach Road. The bizarre move is revealed in a report to the council's finance and resources committee, which has been recommended to approve the sale.

It is understood Mr Cassidy was granted planning permission for alterations to the property, including the balcony, in 2004, but the question of who owned the air never came up.

He was not made aware of the issue until he was refused a building completion certificate, after an official spotted the problem.

Attempts to buy the small section of land underneath the balcony failed, and Mr Cassidy approached the council to buy the airspace, in order to get the completion certificate that would allow him to sell the property.

While the cost of the air itself has been put at £2500 – including VAT – Mr Cassidy will end up paying more, because he has agreed to cover the council's legal fees and surveyors' costs.

In a report to go before councillors, director of city development Andrew Holmes says: "The council was made aware of an encroachment into the airspace of land under its ownership. Provisional agreement has been reached to sell the airspace to Mr Cassidy for the sum of £2500, with the purchaser paying the council's costs relating to the sale."

Edinburgh architect Adrian Welch said selling airspace was a practice that was more common in New York or London. I've never dealt with anything like this in Edinburgh," he said. "It would be pretty rare that a case like this would arise in the Capital, although I have heard about similar situations in London, particularly people developing over tube station airspace, and in New York as well."

Leading city architect Malcolm Fraser added: "I suppose the council is right to ensure the citizens of Edinburgh get what is due. But it seems harsh to effectively punish a guy for doing something that has brightened up a very drab stretch of road."

The house has been converted into an artist's studio and neighbours said that the balcony had been there for well over a year.

One resident, who asked not to be named said. "I don't know the guy, but the house looks interesting, and it seems a little strange that he should have to pay for airspace, particularly as it's just hanging over waste ground."

Mr Cassidy declined to comment on the issue when approached by the Evening News.

[airmuster]

Every aircraft shall be fitted with a "Certified GPS", which will be able to hook up the the Gov't coffers and extract money from the a/c's owner automatically as the a/c is flying over "Her Majesty's" airspace..... sorry +VAT.

Here in West OZ, farmers who build dams (mainly to either water livestock or grow crops) are now required to pay a Tax on the water they use from the dam......... yeah you got it....... they build it, it rains (hopefully), it fills up dam, then you turn the tap on......... and then you hear the tinkle tinkle of the cash register at Govt House + GST

The madness continues

[Hold West]

Each nation "owns" its own airspace under the Chicago Convention (http://www.icao.int/icaonet/arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf). I don't see any provision for charging or not charging for the use of airspace, but they can certainly charge for the use of airports and air navigation facilities.

In the US, any local law governing the right of passage of aircraft is preempted by federal statute. This eliminates the possibility of every little burg charging aircraft for passing overhead.

The "air" issue in this article is different, since it involves a permanent structure overhanging someone else's land. I wouldn't want that either. A little stupid that the city didn't bring that up earlier.

[Lurking123]

Hold Wet, I'm not sure that the Chicago Convention is the authority for ownership of airspace. I would have thought the definitive is something to do with the rights of soveriegnty.

[Token Sane Person]

There is actually an interesting bit of legal history behind this question in the US (and quite possibly in the UK as well, but I don't know it). Originally property rights extended from the boundaries of your property up to infinity. Back in the days before aircraft this just meant you couldn't string wires or build bridges over someone else's property without permission, which made sense. But then the Wright Brothers came along.

Congress declared that the airways were public, but according to the US constitution the government isn't allowed to confiscate property without compensation. So in 1945 a couple of chicken farmers, annoyed that low flying military aircraft were causing panicked chickens to fly into walls, sued. They argued that Congress' declaration was unconstitutional because it had effectively confiscated part of their property, and asserted that the US government was therefore trespassing every time it sent an aircraft over their farm.

The case went to the Supreme Court, who sided with the government. If the judge had stuck to the letter of the law then he would have had to side with the farmers (which would have created some interesting legal conundrums). But in an unusual outbreak of common sense the court declared that "common sense revolted" at the idea of pilots being required to negotiate a continuous right of way for each flight.

[Hold West]

Lurking,

The Chicago Convention is the only place I know of where it's spelled out in so many words. Part 1, Article 1, Section 1:

"The contracting states recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovreignty over the airspace above its territory."

I'm no lawyer, so therefore no expert, but the above statement agreed to and signed by 190 nations is at least a good start on being the right place. :)