Watchdog issues drone warning to housing associations A watchdog has warned social landlords to seek permission before using drones near homes or risk prosecution. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has this week said that landlords need permission if they want to fly camera-installed devices near their homes to inspect roofs. This is in response to news that two housing associations, Bromford and Halton Housing Trust, have purchased drones and intend to use them to cut down on estate management costs. A CAA spokesperson said: ‘Anyone flying an unmanned aircraft within 50 metres of a building or structure will be doing so in breach of the Air Navigation Order, and could potentially face a criminal prosecution. The 50 metres rule is in place solely to protect members of the public.’ To obtain permission, associations have to demonstrate they know how the drone is to be used, show proof of liability insurance and that the operator of the drone is qualified and has attended a CAA-recognised course. A spokesperson for Bromford said it is aware of the rules and is testing them on open land it owns. ‘Once we’ve got to grips with how the drone works and have researched the business case, we’ll go on the relevant course and get CAA permission,’ a spokesperson said. Nick Atkin, chief executive of Halton Housing Trust, said the 6,400-home association is testing its drones in a stores depot that has a high ceiling. Mr Atkin believes drones equipped with cameras to inspect roofs could save the trust £30,000 a year in scaffolding costs. In April, a man from Cumbria became the first person in the UK to be prosecuted for illegally flying a drone. Robert Knowles was fined £800 and ordered to pay £3,500 in costs after he was found to have flown a device too close to a vehicle bridge and over a nuclear facility. UPDATE 9.20am: Walsall Housing Group has become the third social landlord to confirm it is looking at using drones. It is in the process of obtaining a license to operate them. Readers comments (18) Paul Walker | 16/09/2014 8:57 am Toys for boys and nothing else. A saving of £30K could be found on any day in any HA. I hope that no tenants become criminalised simply because they try to safeguard their privacy within their home. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment PhilH | 16/09/2014 9:09 am could these drones fall foul of the same rules that govern CCTV. it is easy to envisage the raft of invasion of privacy complaints that could arise from the inadvertent recording of people in neighbouring properties to that being inspected. we already have neighbours complaining that CCTV protecting cars on drives also sees neighbouring homes and heaven forbid it sees through a window!! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment ManWithAbacus ManWithAbacus | 16/09/2014 9:10 am Totally agree Mr Walker... whats next space hoppers to save money on office chairs? Why are they still using scaffolding? For buildings without internal roof access why not hire a cherry picker mounted on a truck and drive round the estate? (BTW I would estimate that £30k is a fairly typical annual pension contribution for a vast number of HA CEOS...) Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Loft Buster | 16/09/2014 10:22 am And dont invade anybody. OK? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Nigel Lucas Nigel Lucas | 16/09/2014 10:32 am I’m sure this technology will become commonplace in the future. Of course there are privacy issues and safety issues but these are hardly insurmountable. There are always issues when new technology is introduced simply because whatever new facility it offers can be used in either a good or bad way and that’s why we have rules. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment timiz | 16/09/2014 10:36 am Perhaps these drones could come to good use where ASB is concerned as well as other housing management issues. However, privacy will and always remain a concern to the public. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Rexroth | 16/09/2014 10:38 am Must be fun maybe the tenants could have a go as well. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Narra | 16/09/2014 10:47 am Well with all the legal loopholes to jump through there goes any cost savings! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Keiron Gavaghan | 16/09/2014 10:48 am I have operated these devices and they are very capable, however they are totally unsuitable for flying around peoples homes. Like CCTV they are an invasion of privacy and open to abuse. Like previous posts there are other ways to save cash that are far more sensible and much less likely to offend the public. I would not appreciate a landlord peeking through my curtains!!! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Michael Weipert | 16/09/2014 11:21 am Testing in a building with a high ceiling? Really going to help understand how these work, The management are playing more like - toys for boys pehaps - I know well just get rid of people all the low order workers except the ones who sit in offices teying to find ways of getting rid of people as long as it doesnt affect them. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Jonathan Wilson | 16/09/2014 11:26 am Im not sure how there would be any real savings, once costed properly. Even with amortising the cost over more than one year as simple back of a fag packet calculation says the savings might not really exist. Official training Qualification/accreditation (possible re-accreditation yearly?) Insurance Time out of office not performing normal work while droning. Cost to put up scaffolding if a problem is identified. Cost to put up scaffolding if no problems found, but roof starts to leak. Cost of a full time droning specialist or contracted out droner (who no doubt will use his own expensive, much better equipment, seriously have you seen the quality of mass produced cctv and mini cameras). Surely one of the biggest cost savings is, if the scaffolding is up and a problem is found it can be fixed there and then... unless you have a roof inspector who is not a roof fixer (seriously talk about hot tap fitter/cold tap fitter ala-Carry On at Your Convenience farce) Also while the cost of putting up scaffolding with no problems found (I assume that is the metric for 30K savings) can be quantified, of the other X thousand cost to put up scaffolding that identified potential problems subsequently fixed (zero sum cost, as scaffolding would be required anyway) how many those identified problems would not have been found with a purely from a distance/cctv/drone look around potentially costing many more thousands to put right after a problem materialised. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Ayhan Dawood | 16/09/2014 11:43 am There are businesses like mine, flyingbear.photos, all over the UK. We have gone through all of the hoops, passed the CAA exams and have the insurance in place to offer this work commercially, saving whoever wants to use a drone, all of the hassle. The law applies to us too, but we have trained so we know what is legal. Drones will not (yet) be the solution to every problem, but they can save so much time and money when used correctly. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Nigel Porter | 16/09/2014 11:47 am HOW REDICULOUS - YOU CAN FLY THE LARGEST AIRLINERS IN THE WORLD OVER THE ROOFTOPS OF OUR MAJOR CITIES (MAYBE ATTACH CAMERAS TO THEM) BUT WE CANNOT FREELY SURVEY OUR OWN ROOF TOPS TO KEEP THE TENANTS DRY!! WHY DO WE ALWAYS HAVE PROTESTORS AGAINST WHAT EVER WE DO? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Brian Johansson | 16/09/2014 11:52 am After reading that headline I was disappointed to hear that the watchdog would not be delivering a warning to HAs via drone. Which would be funnier. What a silly idea to use drones. HAs get back in the land of the living and sort the basics out. This is completely unproven, so even if you are thinking of it - do some good testing before you speak to IH. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment BlokeWithAConscience BlokeWithAConscience | 16/09/2014 12:14 pm Hilarious story, thanks for making me laugh. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Melvin Bone Melvin Bone | 16/09/2014 12:27 pm I tend to agree with Ayhan Dawood and that Housing associations dont need to buy drones but and have a full time drone pilot on their books when they can just hire them in... Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment BlokeWithAConscience BlokeWithAConscience | 16/09/2014 12:30 pm Wouldnt be called Luke Skywalker by any chance? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment alistair mcintosh | 16/09/2014 12:32 pm A drone in every board room would save the HCA a fortune Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment insidehousing.co.uk/technology/watchdog-issues-drone-warning-to-housing-associations/7005700.article?PageNo=1&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=20#comments
Posted on: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:47:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015