Private Landing Site UK - What Legislation ?

[JTobias]

All

I'm trying to determine the legislation that allows Helicopters to land without planning permission etc (i.e. only landowners permission etc). I am particularly interested in the legislation for venues that are NOT private residences e.g. a hotel.

I have always been under the impression that we operated under Part 4, Class B of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Devlopment Order 1988. Similiarly, I have also referred to the British Helicopter Association Guidelines (see extract below) which stipulate that helicopters may land and take off within the curtilage of the gardens of a property etc . Alternatively, we can use any piece of land under the 28 day rule. However, I am lead to believe, from a Planning Lawyer, that these regulations have been superceded and do NOT cover landing and taking off from a venue that is not a private dwelling e.g. a hotel. Equally, I am told, the 28 day rule does not apply if its within the curtilage of a such a property - again, because it is NOT a private dwelling.

So basically I am told that an area of "garden" at a venue that is NOT a private residence is NOT covered by either the 28 day rule or the Curtilage rule because it isn't a private dwelling. If this is the case, then those of us who regulalry land at hotels etc are not entitled to do so. In truth I don't care but I am trying to obtain permission to land somewhere and I'm running into difficulty because of this. Comments please.

Extract from the British Helicopter Association Guidelines

General

Any owner of a piece of ground may use it as a helicopter landing facility without any kind of permission, provided the following conditions are met:-
• It is not in a congested area, defined in Article 118 of the Air Navigation Order 1995 as amended; that is, any area in relation to a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purpose. (Note: If there is any doubt as to whether an area is congested or not, it is advisable to apply to the CAA for a "Rule 5 Permission").

• No structure is erected in connection with its use as a helicopter landing area eg concrete landing pad, hangar, etc. other than a temporary structure such as a windsleeve.
• Its use is confined to the private or business use of the owner, his own employees or anyone specifically visiting him for social or business purposes.

• A pilot using the site will be able to conform with Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996, as amended.

4.3 Temporary Landing Sites

Under Part 4, Class B of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, helicopters are permitted to take off and land at temporary sites provided the site is not used for more than 28 days in any one calendar year. The operator must also have permission from the owner of the site.

4.4 Private Landing Sites

Helicopters may operate from the gardens of private houses without planning consent provided the landing site is within the curtilage of the property. Even though an owner of a property may also own an adjoining field, its use as a landing site would require planning consent as the field falls into the category of open land. Helicopter operations from it would constitute a change to the conditions of use requiring planning consent. However the field could be used under the rules for temporary sites i.e. for not more than 28 days in any one calendar year (see Section 4.3 above).

The guidelines can be found here

https://www.britishhelicopterassociation.org/download/88/

[ShyTorque]

However, I am lead to believe, from a Planning Lawyer, that these regulations have been superceded and do NOT cover landing and taking off from a venue that is not a private dwelling e.g. a hotel. Equally, I am told, the 28 day rule does not apply if its within the curtilage of a such a property - again, because it is NOT a private dwelling.

I'd start by asking the planning lawyer to supply written documentation to support his belief.

[JTobias]

Hi

I could and probably will do that, but I’m looking for a steer here also in the interim.

[ShyTorque]

I'm sure all of us here follow the existing advice, as per the BHA info you've already published (I am a member of BHA).

I've been in the industry since 1979 and never seen the publication of any legislation changes that says we are no longer allowed to land at hotel landing sites.

I'm sure the industry would have a lot to say if this is true.

[JTobias]

Well I would agree with you, but if you look at the legislation and then refer to the following paragraph (see below) then it suggests that if the land is within the curtilage (which includes the grounds of a hotel) then the 28 rule does NOT apply.

Class B – temporary use of land
Permitted development

B. The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes of—

(a)the holding of a market;

(b)motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities,

and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use.
Development not permitted

B.1 Development is not permitted by Class B if—

(a)it would consist of development of a kind described in Class E of this Part (temporary use of land for film-making);

(b)the land in question is a building or is within the curtilage of a building;

(c)the use of the land is for a caravan site;

(d)the land is, or is within, a site of special scientific interest and the use of the land is for—

(i)motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed or other motor sports, and practising for these activities;

(ii)clay pigeon shooting; or

(iii)any war game, or

(e)the use of the land is for the display of an advertisement.

[ShyTorque]

It has always been a contentious issue, but I think the crux is what comprises the actual "curtilage". From what I remember, the curtilage may in some cases be smaller than the actual boundary of the property. For example, at a hotel with a large open area around it.

I don't recall any precedent in law where this has been actually tried in court.

[JTobias]

Well this appears to be the issue, but according to one particular council I'm battling with over a simple landing and departure at a forthcoming wedding venue, they consider the location's grounds (which are extensive) to be within the curtilage and have therefore indicated that the provisions I've referred to don't apply. Now I believe that there may be provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which has superceded the legislation the the BHA referes to i.e. the GDO 1988) that allows for activities to take place which are incidental to the primary use of the property. I'm trying to identify what and where this legislation is.

Before you ask why the local council have been involved, I sent an e-mail to the General Manager of the venue advising them of my intentions to land and I was told that I required permission from the Council which clearly I don't (or so I believed) and so I challenged this and explained that it's not necessary. In turn, the General Manager contacted the council and they advised him to submit a pre-application at a cost of £150. He forwarded the e-mail to me and so I was left with little choice but to contact the council and challenge the answer they'd given to the venue. I'm still battling it out and I decided to contact my lawyer for advice. In 31 years of flying planes and helicopters I've never been in this situation and I'm determined to resolve it (in my favour obviously!!)

Also, before anyone says, well just land somewhere else or close by etc. I could, but that's not the point!

[EESDL]

Best of British luck to you.
”Tolerate this and your children will be next” - as one Welsh pop group once said.
the problem with the BHA site is that not everything is ‘current’.

[JTobias]

EESDL - preciseley, hence me fighting it

[Hughes500]

The UK law is by precedent, which is decided by a judge ! So if other hotels have been granted planning permission ( bear in mind it is the planning committee that grants permission not the council officers ) then you are on to a winner. The council will have to put an enforcement order on you to stop you doing it. This is very expensive for the council to do, it also means you have to go to appeal again expensive. By that stage the laws of precedent will be used. Hence if other places have planning permission then hey presto !
I should know I had the laws of precedent used by my local council, they used AlFyed landing on the roof of Harrods as curtlidge v my garden on Dartmoor !!!!! The planning committee laughed the planning officers out of the room for using this example

[JTobias]

Thanks Hughes500, all that makes sense and clearly I'm hoping that we wont get near to that obviosuly.

The difficulty I currently have is
a) identyfying the current legislation that technically allows us to land and
b) convincing the General Manager that it's basically no big deal (particularly he's allowed me to hover over the proposed landing area within his grounds and I've landed at 3 other hotels in the last 3 days without a problem!)

[Hughes500]

Not sure if it is still the case but Planning notice 24 stated

A helicopter landing in a field does not necessarily constitute a change of use unless a hard surface, hanger and landing lights have been erected.

Also if helicopters have been landing there for 4 years ( might be 10 not sure ) then you can apply for a letter of lawfulness providing there have been no issues and there is nothing the council can do.
Why do you want planning permission, only really need it of the council starts complaining !

[ShyTorque]

Surely, in UK we are allowed to do what we choose unless the law says we cannot, rather than we can do nothing unless the law says we can do the particular thing we would like to do.

A few years ago a hotel manager told me I needed police permission to land a helicopter anywhere. It took quite some time to persuade her that I certainly did not!

[misterbonkers]

JTOBIAS; be careful about hovering and manouvering around the grounds of a hotel; check out SERA and the 60m rule...

Have you tried speaking to the council direct? Can you bamboozle them with risk assessments, experience, previous landings etc? If you’ve been there before then why the change of heart from them? Does a councillor live nearby? Have you upset someone?

which hotel is it?

regards, MB

[AnglianAV8R]

Surely, in UK we are allowed to do what we choose unless the law says we cannot, rather than we can do nothing unless the law says we can do the particular thing we would like to do.


Yes, absolutely correct. unless we stay in the EU, which is increasingly on the lines of Napoleonic law where everything is regulated and you can't do anything unless the law permits.
The established UK position could be fairly described as everything is lawful, unless a specific laws deems otherwise.
It reminds me of a time I was pouring vegetable oil into my diesel van tank, because it was considerably cheaper than diesel at the time. A shocked couple approached me and asked what I was doing. Having explained that Dr Diesel actually used peanut oil when he invented his combustion ignition engine, they asked me if I was allowed ? So I had to explain the law, as above and that the only legal stipulation was that there was an annual limit per household and if you went beyond that, you'd have to pay fuel duty to Her Maj.

Returning to the subject of landing a clattercopter in hotel grounds. My rather basic understanding of planning law is that the kommisars at the local council get involved if it is a 'development' or a change of use of the premises. If you land on the lawn and there's no 'built' facility it aint a development. Neither is it a change of use, as the occasional landing of a clattercopter at a hotel is common practice in this free(?) country and is 'incidental to the use of the site'

JTobias, stand your ground Sir. Tell the kommisar you would welcome his full written explanation of UK law and how he believes it applies to your situation. In the meantime, I'd carry on.

Disclaimer: The writer of this post has no specific qualifications in the field of planning law, may contain nuts, other opinions are available and may vary.

[chopjock]

JTOBIAS; be careful about hovering and manouvering around the grounds of a hotel; check out SERA and the 60m rule...

regards, MB

Unless landing or taking off "in accordance with normal aviation practice" comes to mind...

[ShyTorque]

Due caution needs to be exercised with regard to minimum separation when operating in such circumstances, Chopjock.

Whenever I've been obliged to gain a CAA written permission in circumstances like this (I've kept a box file of these from the past obtained when I've been required to land at a hotel or other location in a congested area), as I'm sure you have, they have always stipulated a minimum separation distance, usually 30 meters, sometimes more - without going through them all I know it reads a rather surprising 100 metres on one of them - iirc, that was at a hotel helipad near LHR.

I recall a court case from a few years ago where a woman claimed to have been blown off her chair and injured by a helicopter hovering at a hotel. The allegation was upheld.

[rudestuff]

JTobias - can you give us a back story? What are you specifically trying to achieve and why - is this a theoretical exercise or are you planning something specific and someone's being difficult? 99% of the time a pilot would ring a hotel, get permission and then land there.

[golfbananajam]

Beware the HSE too, even if you are allowed to land legally, it being a "public" space I would have expected you to need some sort of written safety assessment agreed with the venue which covers things like small children running out while your rotors are running, action in the event of..... etc. It may also be prudent to let the local police know, assuming it's not a regular occurrence at the venue, or you may end up with someone dialing 999 resulting in a mass response for a crashed heli

Just my 10 peneth having never flown rotary

[meleagertoo]

I'm not at all sure that this is any responsibility of the pilot's. Planning law relates only to the owner or tenant of the land, it is their responsibiity to remain within planning bounds. It can't be the responsibility of the pilot if, unknowingly, he is given landowners permisson to land on the 29th day. The council can have no jusrisdiction over the pilot, only the landowner and I can't imagine the pilot has commited any offence by landing on day 29. That's not suggesting that this matter isn't of great interest and perhaps importance to pilots, clearly iy is, but not for direct legal reasons.
istr that even landowner's permission is nowhere required by law, merely by custom and even that only to avoid allegations of a trivial offense that's almost impossible to prosecute, trespass.

[heli1]

I have been reading this thread with interest,even tho I have had to battle through unwanted and unsolicited adverts all the way( administrators ...can't you do something about that?).Anyway I totally agree with the majority of positive comments you have received....provided there is no fixed structure you don't need planning permission...nor if the landing area is used for not more than 28 days a year, and if more it can be argued it's incidental to the use of the premises ( although usually that applies to the land owner who uses a helicopter as others use their car...both are transport.There are plenty of examples in the BHA handbook of hotels and other venues that accept helicopters on this basis....and did you know military helicopters are exempt ?!
It would be interesting to know the council (pm me?) as that could be enlightening. With the need for money quite a few councils are using pre application advice as a means of charging potential planning applicants for comments ...even when the answer is obvious!

[JTobias]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for all your replies - I will try and answer each persons questions :-

misterbonkers - the landing spot is 250m away from a building and I could land an airliner in there. It's also in the middle of nowhere and there's nothing around the venue either except green fields. I'm happy with the site and certainly landed in similiar and smaller hundred's of times. I'd rather not mention the venue except to say it's an established wedding and function venue on the Wirrall. I've contacted the Council and pretty much had an argument with them because they refuse to commit eithert way without me paying £150 and submitting a pre planning application - ludicrous.

rudestuff - No reall back story other than what I've described above. I'm attending a wedding as a guest and want to land in their grounds. Incidentally, they're using the grounds to park the other guests cars and I simply want to land there. It is literally as big as Liverpool Airport and there's no shortage of space. I have since learned though that the venue has had it's own issues with the council on unrelated issues and this is why they are hesitant. The issues they have had are within the public domain and in fact resulted in the Council being condemned by a Judge.

Golfbananajam - no chance, if we had to do that every time, there would be no point in owning a helicopter as we'd never get airborne.

Meleagertoo - I agree, but I still need (and want) the landowners permission and they mistakenly believe I need council approval which I don't. I want to land there so I'm putting in the effort to convince the venue that they don't need it.

heli1 - thanks, I am sticking at it and thanks for the warning regarding nuts because I'm allergic to them !!!

[212man]

Unless landing or taking off "in accordance with normal aviation practice" comes to mind...
Which clearly - the whole point of his thread! - he was not doing (yet)!

[ShyTorque]

Beware the HSE too, even if you are allowed to land legally, it being a "public" space I would have expected you to need some sort of written safety assessment agreed with the venue which covers things like small children running out while your rotors are running, action in the event of..... etc. It may also be prudent to let the local police know, assuming it's not a regular occurrence at the venue, or you may end up with someone dialing 999 resulting in a mass response for a crashed heli

Just my 10 peneth having never flown rotary


UK AIP GEN 1-6-7 gives guidance on the use of a temporary landing site. For ease of finding the relevant pages, this link is useful: https://helipaddy.com/blog/2019/01/16/landing-near-open-air-assemblies

[Espada III]

Permit an interuption from a surveyor.

The curtilage of a property is not the land around it in the same ownership. There are many examples of legal/planning matters/tax where the property is allowed a certain area to with as it pleases and beyond that use is limited.

An example might be a house in green belt where the council drew an imaginary boundary in the garden between an area near the house where they could build a barbeque, erect a trampoline or a children's play area and an area where they could not. The two areas looked identical and the overall area was perfectly reasonable for a house of it's size.

For tax purposes, selling your principal private residence is free from CGT only if the curtilage is less than about one acre. Anything more is taxed.

So a question of fact and degree as to curtilage....

You need a planning consultant or specialist lawyer Joel.

[JTobias]

UK AIP GEN 1-6-7 gives guidance on the use of a temporary landing site. For ease of finding the relevant pages, this link is useful: https://helipaddy.com/blog/2019/01/16/landing-near-open-air-assemblies

Thanks, interestingly, it restricts the use of the site at night, which would rule out a night departure, something I find odd

[muffin]

There was a thread many years ago on this forum where FL gave an authoritative statement on this very subject. Try a search.

[chopjock]

chopjock
Unless landing or taking off "in accordance with normal aviation practice" comes to mind...


Which clearly - the whole point of his thread! - he was not doing (yet)!


212man
You do know that when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice that you don't actually have to land or take off right?

[JTobias]

Permit an interuption from a surveyor.

The curtilage of a property is not the land around it in the same ownership. There are many examples of legal/planning matters/tax where the property is allowed a certain area to with as it pleases and beyond that use is limited.

An example might be a house in green belt where the council drew an imaginary boundary in the garden between an area near the house where they could build a barbeque, erect a trampoline or a children's play area and an area where they could not. The two areas looked identical and the overall area was perfectly reasonable for a house of it's size.

For tax purposes, selling your principal private residence is free from CGT only if the curtilage is less than about one acre. Anything more is taxed.

So a question of fact and degree as to curtilage....

You need a planning consultant or specialist lawyer Joel.

It shouldn't be this difficult - can you imagine if we had to do this every time???????

[Gustosomerset]

IMHO, I don't think you should get distracted into a debate about the definition of 'curtilage'. As Espada III suggests, that's a whole murky area of planning law that almost no-one has enough time to get involved in. And I suspect it's completely irrelevant in any case, as is any suggestion that the hotel is not a 'private site'.

On the other hand I think it could be all about the back story: "... the venue has had its own issues with the council on unrelated issues and this is why they are hesitant. The issues they have had are within the public domain and in fact resulted in the Council being condemned by a Judge."

From what I can tell, the back story goes like this: Wedding Venue A (where you want to land) has just won a major legal dispute at appeal with the local council over an erroneous planning permission awarded to Wedding Venue B (about a mile or so away) over 5 years ago. This decision will dramatically effect the business of WVB (presumably to the benefit of WVA). Meanwhile Wedding Venue C (between the two, really!) applied for and obtained temporary permission for a helipad in 2010, extended ultimately until 2016 but not, as far as I can tell, renewed subsequently. This allowed for '1 or 2 movements per week' (hence the clear need for PP). At the time of the original application, there was vociferous local opposition on the basis that: "...if one club was allowed a helicopter pad, nearby venues like (WVA) and (WVB) would soon follow suit."

So, in short, I think this is nothing at all to do with legislation and all to do with local politics in an area where the locals are already highly sensitive to helicopters and weddings, three adjacent wedding venues are in very fierce competition, each liable to resort to legal action at the slightest excuse, and the local council has just been made to look incompetent. All in all, although there's no legal reason why you shouldn't, I think landing a helicopter in the middle of that sh**storm is unlikely to go well....

[JTobias]

IMHO, I don't think you should get distracted into a debate about the definition of 'curtilage'. As Espada III suggests, that's a whole murky area of planning law that almost no-one has enough time to get involved in. And I suspect it's completely irrelevant in any case, as is any suggestion that the hotel is not a 'private site'.

On the other hand I think it could be all about the back story: "... the venue has had its own issues with the council on unrelated issues and this is why they are hesitant. The issues they have had are within the public domain and in fact resulted in the Council being condemned by a Judge."

From what I can tell, the back story goes like this: Wedding Venue A (where you want to land) has just won a major legal dispute at appeal with the local council over an erroneous planning permission awarded to Wedding Venue B (about a mile or so away) over 5 years ago. This decision will dramatically effect the business of WVB (presumably to the benefit of WVA). Meanwhile Wedding Venue C (between the two, really!) applied for and obtained temporary permission for a helipad in 2010, extended ultimately until 2016 but not, as far as I can tell, renewed subsequently. This allowed for '1 or 2 movements per week' (hence the clear need for PP). At the time of the original application, there was vociferous local opposition on the basis that: "...if one club was allowed a helicopter pad, nearby venues like (WVA) and (WVB) would soon follow suit."

So, in short, I think this is nothing at all to do with legislation and all to do with local politics in an area where the locals are already highly sensitive to helicopters and weddings, three adjacent wedding venues are in very fierce competition, each liable to resort to legal action at the slightest excuse, and the local council has just been made to look incompetent. All in all, although there's no legal reason why you shouldn't, I think landing a helicopter in the middle of that sh**storm is unlikely to go well....

I think you've hit the nail on the head !!