Hi hi Mick.
Part of my work is condition-assessments of structures to identify possible corrosion damage and potential failures of components, so a lot of my work is on bridges. In the UK there are 110, 000 bridges.
These structures are owned by ... being difficult and sometimes quite obnoxious.
This can and does make it impossible to obtain written permission to undertake the mission.
...
As I see it, there is no advantage to such a mandate, in fact having such a mechanism in place would serve to further restrict our operations.
It is my understanding that in England & Wales land owners do NOT own any airspace, so we do not require any special permissions to use it; however, in Scotland landowners do own the airspace.
The ANO requires sub7s to maintain a minimum separation of 50m from any structure etc. so as long as we observe the appropriate separations, have permission for suitable TOLP's and respect the ICO rules regarding privacy and the laws governing harassment we should be okay.
Landowners such as the National Trust, farmers & householders have rights regarding harassment & privacy which are difficult to navigate so their cooperation is important if not always necessary. I would consider posting a notice of intent on lamp posts to be an adequate provision as long as it gives reasonable time for objections to be heard.
We must also check for local legal restrictions such as byelaws. Local councils implement byelaws generally on safety grounds which have to be passed by an act of parliament which makes them legally enforceable so best stay clear of council owned parks. Thankfully these byelaws are usually very specific about the spaces that they apply to.
So my current interpretation is that as long as I fly within the ANO and with TOLP permissions and don't piss anyone off, I should be okay... and if I do piss someone off then the chances are I will still be okay albeit an undesirable outcome.
If something does go wrong however, there is a catch-all rule in the ANO which I am sure was designed to shift the focus squarely onto the pilot if something does go wrong... that being that a flight must only be carried out if the pilot deems it safe to do so (or words to that effect). Leaving it open for the CAA to claim that the pilot was at fault, in that, if something went wrong then safety wasn't adequately mitigated.
Everything here is my interpretation... nothing else!