Brighton & Hove wants to ban drone take-off and landing across every council park and open space. But drone safety is already regulated nationally by the CAA4, with tougher rules since January 20265. Enforce those against unsafe flying; don't criminalise responsible pilots, photographers and filmmakers. A blanket ban is a disproportionate response to a problem the CAA already polices. Have your say by Friday 7 August 2026.
Independent residents' campaign · respond via the council's Your Voice survey
The evidence gap
See something dangerous or anti-social? There is already a route for that.
Report dangerous or anti-social flying to Sussex PoliceStart here
Before the arguments, the facts, stated plainly, because the details matter and they're easy to get wrong.
Stage
Cabinet approved consultation on 29 June 2026. A final order returns later with an evidence base and a proportionality assessment. Responding now genuinely counts.3
Scope
The proposal targets unauthorised drone take-off and landing across council parks and open spaces. That restricts use of the land. It does not, and cannot, create an aviation no-fly zone.1
Deadline
Respond through the council's Your Voice survey, one of 12 PSPO consultations closing that day. It takes five minutes.2
To be clear
We're drone operators, photographers and residents who want sensible rules, and who already follow them. Here's exactly where we stand.
Why oppose it
Not because drone misuse never happens, but because the real harms are already covered by CAA rules and police powers, and a parks-wide ban is badly targeted at the people who follow them.
The CAA Drone Code already covers the real risks: registration, the 120m height limit, distance from crowds, line of sight, restricted airspace and privacy. If someone flies dangerously, the fix is enforcement, not banning everyone who follows the rules.4
On 1 January 2026 the CAA lowered the Flyer ID threshold from 250g to 100g, and added Remote ID and UK class marks (UK0 to UK6). National rules got stricter six months ago. Let them bed in before adding a local ban.5
A PSPO can only restrict take-off and landing from council land. The air above is separate, so a drone could still lawfully overfly the same park from a nearby launch point. Restricting airborne flight is a CAA matter (CAP 722C), not a parks byelaw.6
The published case leans on a generic line about children's recreation, with no Brighton & Hove injury, incident or complaint figures. Publish the local evidence before restricting a lawful, regulated activity across every park.3
A PSPO must target specific behaviour and be proportionate. A registered pilot following the Drone Code isn't being anti-social. Limits around playgrounds, events or evidenced hotspots would be far more defensible than an all-parks rule.
Photography, film, journalism, mapping, survey, conservation. Brighton & Hove's seafront, piers and the South Downs are among the UK's finest public landscapes, and responsible drone work helps document them. A blanket ban hits the people already following the rules.
A city-wide ban is a disproportionate over-reaction.
The rules already exist. Enforce them.
Before you respond
Read the questions carefully. The wording leans toward agreement, so it is easy to answer in a way the council can count as support for the ban. Here is what to watch for, and the two answers that actually decide it.
Loaded framing
The opening questions ask whether flying outside CAA rules is a hazard, and whether the council should stop it. But flying outside CAA rules is already unlawful, so almost everyone agrees, and the very first question gives you no box to explain. Tick “agree” to an obvious point and the council can record you as backing the ban.
Softer than the order
The questions talk about stopping drones “unless they follow CAA guidelines”, which sounds like it only catches rule-breakers. The order it is consulting on (Appendix 3) bans take-off and landing by everyone, including pilots who follow every CAA rule.
The fine
By the time it asks whether a £100 fixed penalty is fair, the survey takes the ban as given. That penalty would fall on responsible, registered pilots following the Drone Code, not just the dangerous misuse the earlier questions describe. You can disagree with the fine and with the order itself.
This is the vote
Everything before these questions is framing. If you do nothing else, answer these two.
Question 1
Should a PSPO be introduced for the next three years?
Disagree
This is the real decision, and the clear way to oppose the ban.
Question 2
Is a £100 fine fair?
Disagree
A fixed penalty for a lawful, CAA-compliant activity is disproportionate.
The questions in between have a “Please explain your answer” box, and there is a general comments box near the end. Those boxes are where your reasons land, so use them. The ready-made response below covers all of this if you would rather paste a full statement.
Have your say
Consultations are weighed on the responses they get. Add yours before Friday 7 August 2026.
The council's official consultation channel. Find the PSPO / drone questions.
Object to a blanket parks-and-open-spaces drone restriction in its current form.
Start from the response on the right, edit it to sound like you, and submit before the deadline.
Copy & adapt
I oppose the proposed drone PSPO in its current form. Drone safety is already regulated nationally by the Civil Aviation Authority, and those rules were tightened again on 1 January 2026, with a lower 100g Flyer ID threshold, Remote ID and UK class marks. The CAA Drone Code already covers height limits, distance from people, crowds, restricted airspace, registration and safe operation. A blanket restriction across all council parks and open spaces is disproportionate and badly targeted. A PSPO only restricts take-off and landing from council land. It does not create a no-fly zone, so drones could still lawfully overfly the same parks from nearby land. The council has also not published any local evidence of harm. I also oppose the proposed £100 fixed penalty. It would fall on responsible, registered pilots following the CAA rules, not just on the unsafe, unlawful flying the consultation describes. You cannot fairly fine people for an activity that is otherwise lawful and already regulated. I support enforcement against genuinely unsafe, intrusive or nuisance flying. I do not support a broad ban on responsible, lawful, CAA-compliant users. Please reject the blanket PSPO and replace it with a targeted, evidence-based policy.
Edit it in your own words before sending. Councils weight individual responses far more heavily than identical copy-paste.
The published route to respond is the council's Your Voice survey. If you need an alternative format, or want to ask whether email responses are accepted, you can email the consultation officer.
The careful version of each point, because overstating the case helps no one.
Not as published. The proposal is about unauthorised take-off and landing on council land. Airspace is regulated nationally by the CAA, separately from who owns the ground below, so a land restriction is not the same thing as a no-fly zone.
Yes, to a point. Councils can make PSPOs covering their public spaces and control use of their own land. The objection isn't that they have no power. It's that a parks-wide blanket ban looks broader than the published evidence justifies, and the real harms it points at, unsafe flying, crowds and privacy, are already covered by the CAA rules and police powers in force today.
Yes. On 1 January 2026 the CAA lowered the Flyer ID requirement to drones over 100g (from 250g), and brought in Remote ID and the UK class-mark system. National drone regulation was tightened only six months ago, so a fresh local ban on top of it is premature.
Safety matters, and there are genuine concerns around playgrounds, crowds and privacy. But the published case doesn't yet show local evidence that existing powers are failing, and a blanket parks-wide ban is a disproportionate way to address it. Targeted measures around specific risks would meet those concerns without banning responsible users everywhere.
No. Cabinet approved a consultation on 29 June 2026. A final proposal, with an evidence base and a proportionality assessment, comes back later. That's exactly why responding now matters.
Yes. Consultations count responses. Whether you fly for photography, mapping and inspection, or you simply think public policy should be proportionate and evidence-led, your response adds weight.
Fly responsibly
If you fly, fly properly: read the Drone Code, check the airspace, keep visual line of sight, avoid crowds, respect privacy, and hold the right Flyer / Operator ID. The rules already exist, and we follow them.
Check it yourself
Don't take our word for it. Every claim on this page traces back to public documents. The numbers match the footnotes above.
