Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services

(copy attached) on the potential of regulating the use of unmanned aircraft in Denbighshire and determine if any further action should be recommended in respect of the matter

9.35am – 10.15am

The Chair introduced the Lead Member for Public Realm and thanked him for the work he had undertaken on his portfolio over the last 5 years, thoughts that were echoed by the Committee members.

The Lead Member for Public Realm presented the report (previously circulated) and informed the Committee that the report had been submitted to them in response to County Council’s request - following its debate in December 2016 on a Notice of Motion put forward by Councillor Arwel Roberts seeking the flying of ‘drones’ to be banned over all public places in Denbighshire. 

County Council had determined that Scrutiny consider whether the Council should introduce further restrictions, to those already provided for by law, in relation to the flying of unmanned aircraft. 

The Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services (HLHR&DS) had provided the Committee with a report detailing the regulatory framework relating to the use of unmanned aircraft, listing the acts and regulations which currently governed their use.  The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 provided powers for local authorities to make byelaws for the prevention or suppression of nuisances in their area.  Nevertheless, the enforcement of local byelaws in relation to the flying of unmanned aircraft could potentially prove to be extremely difficult, due to the nature of the problem. 

The HLHR&DS advised that current legislation  contained within the Civil Aviation Act (1982) and the later related Air Navigation Order 2016 were very comprehensive and covered all aspects of flying aircraft, be they manned or unmanned, including drones.  He advised that the Council could not do anything to govern drones in flight, the only powers available to them was if they wished to introduce byelaws banning people from flying them from Council owned land. 

The HLHRDS drew members’ attention to a recent UK Department for Transport consultation ‘Unlocking the UK’s High Tech Economy:  Consultation on the Safe Used of drones in the UK’ which had closed recently.  He explained that the wide-ranging consultation (a copy of which was attached to the report)  focussed on raising awareness on how to safely operate drones for commercial and leisure purposes, without hindering enterprise or innovation.  He also advised the Committee that the Council itself used drones to survey buildings and landscapes.

Councillor David Simmons advised that he was aware that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) was at present trialling some very sophisticated drones, fitted with the very latest technology which would aid the charity’s rescue work.  Some of the drones already in use by the RNLI were fitted with a Global Positioning System (GPS) which was able to calculate an object’s distance from the drone operator.

Responding to members’ questions the HLHRDS advised that:

·         Local authorities did not have any control over airspace, that was governed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA);

·         the Civil Aviation Act, 1982 and the Air Navigation Order, 2016 addressed matters such as airspace congestion and aviation noise levels;

·         Privacy, personal injury and data protection laws protected individuals’ rights to privacy and from intrusion caused by drones and unmanned aircraft;

·         It was illegal to fly a drone in built-up areas or, if fitted with a camera, within 50m of a building without a permit; and

·         Further guidance would probably be issued by the Department for Transport once all consultation responses had been considered prior to the introduction of any new legislation.

Councillor Arwel Roberts advised the Committee that following his notice of motion he had received an e-mail from a London based global security company in relation to drone related problems, including noise nuisance.  The company was offering to help individuals or companies which were being plagued by the use of drones.   

A member of the public in attendance at the meeting was invited to address the Committee.  He explained that he was a licenced drone operator and was well versed with the current laws regulating their use, which in his view were comprehensive.  He advised members that responsibility in relation to reporting complaints about drones had recently been transferred from the CAA to the Police, therefore if a member of the public had a complaint in relation to unmanned aircraft they should, in the first instance, contact the Police.  There was also a website which contained details of a code for the safe use of drones.  He offered members his services for information on drone/unmanned aircraft related matters and information.

The Committee thanked Councillor Arwel Roberts for drawing the matter of drone use to the Council’s attention and to the HLHRDS and the member of the public who had attended the meeting for explaining current legislation governing the use of unmanned aircraft to members.  They were of the view that the discussion and the information imparted had been extremely useful and informative.  Members were firmly of the view that it would not be effective to introduce any byelaws in relation to flying unmanned aircraft at present as current legislation and guidance available seemed to effectively govern their use.  Nevertheless, they undertook to monitor the outcome of the recent consultation exercise and consider the matter further in future if the outcome of the consultation warranted such an approach.  It was:

Resolved: subject to the above observations that no further action was recommended at present in respect of the regulation of drone use in Denbighshire, as current legislation and guidance sufficiently governed their use. However, if the findings of the UK Government’s consultation on the safe use of drones, ‘Unlocking the UK’s High Tech Economy’, merited further consideration of the matter that a further report be submitted to Scrutiny on potential local regulation.