On 17 September 2026 the council's Cabinet did not adopt the proposed order banning drone take-off and landing from every council park and open space1. In the consultation, 67.4% of respondents opposed it2, and the council's own officers concluded the legal tests had not been met. Thank you to everyone who responded.
The decision says “not recommended at this time”. The proposal could return with more evidence, so this site is staying up.
Asked under Freedom of Information for the evidence behind the proposed ban, the council said it had received no drone complaints or incident reports in five years, and held no underlying data or reports for the June report that proposed it.
See the FOI responseIndependent residents' campaign · not affiliated with the council
The outcome
The decision
At Cabinet on 17 September 2026 the drone order was one of only two proposed PSPOs not taken forward. The decision says both “require further consideration in light of the issues identified during the consultation. Accordingly, these measures are not recommended at this time.”1
The consultation
132 people responded. 89 (67.4%) disagreed with introducing the drone PSPO, and 34 (25.8%) agreed. 94 (71.2%) disagreed that the £100 fine was fair. It drew the highest level of disagreement of the 12 PSPOs in the council's results report, and the Cabinet report says there was “no clear mandate”.23
The council's own conclusion
Council officers concluded the statutory tests for a citywide PSPO “have not been met to the extent required to justify the making of the Order at this time”, and recommended relying instead on existing powers, targeted site restrictions, public education and partnership working with the Civil Aviation Authority and Sussex Police.2
132 people responded: 55 residents (41.7%), 55 visitors (41.7%), 16 other, 5 local stakeholders and 1 community group.
| Question | Agreed | Disagreed |
|---|---|---|
| Introduce the drone PSPO for three years | 25.8% (34) | 67.4% (89) |
| The £100 fixed penalty is fair | 17.4% (23) | 71.2% (94) |
| Flying outside CAA guidelines is a problem and potential hazard | 28.8% (38) | 58.3% (77) |
| The council should stop non-compliant flying in public spaces | 43.2% (57) | 50% (66) |
“On balance, it is considered that the statutory tests for introducing a citywide PSPO have not been met to the extent required to justify the making of the Order at this time.”
Council officers, Appendix 4 to the Cabinet report, 17 September 2026
NewFOI response published on the Grey Arrows forum, 23 September 2026
Freedom of Information
The council proposed an order that would have made unauthorised drone take-off and landing a criminal offence in every council park and open space. Asked under the Freedom of Information Act for the evidence behind it, the council said it had received no drone-related incidents, complaints or reports in the last five years, and held no underlying data, reports or correspondence for the Cabinet report that proposed it.4
The request was made while the consultation was still open. The reply came after Cabinet had already decided.
“the potential introduction of new Public Space Protection Orders to address anti-social behaviours and/or activities identified through evidence and partner intelligence, as set out in Appendix 3.”
“There will be a requirement for solid evidence to justify renewal and any new matters.”
“History across the country of this being an issue and unsafe in a children’s recreation environment.”
Questions are shortened here. The council's answer to each question is quoted in full, as published on the Grey Arrows forum by the person who made the request.7
Question 1: Asked
How many drone-related incidents, complaints or reports were recorded by the council and/or Sussex Police in Brighton & Hove in each of the last five years?
The council said
“None received”
This answer covers the council's own records. Sussex Police holds its own.
Question 2: Asked
For each incident, what happened and where?
The council said
“N/A”
Question 3: Asked
How many involved flying that broke Civil Aviation Authority rules, as opposed to compliant flights that were merely the subject of a complaint?
The council said
“N/A”
Question 4: Asked
How many led to a police report, a fixed penalty notice, criminal proceedings or a conviction?
The council said
“N/A”
Question 5: Asked
What underlying data, reports or correspondence were referenced or relied on in preparing the drone proposal in the Cabinet report of 29 June 2026?
The council said
“None held”
Question 6: Asked
Were any alternatives considered before proposing a blanket restriction on take-off and landing, such as permits for registered operators or limits at specific sites with a history of incidents, and if so why were they not taken forward?
The council said
“The PSPO is for no unauthorised drones to take off/land on public open spaces. Drones therefore could be authorised with council permission”
Question 7: Asked
Was any equality or economic impact assessment carried out for the proposed drone restriction?
The council said
“No data held”
Thank you to Prawntot on the Grey Arrows forum, who made the request, chased the reply and shared it.
A council can only make a PSPO if it is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that activities in a public place have had, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect on local quality of life that is, or is likely to be, persistent or continuing, makes the activities unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions. A rule whose breach would be a criminal offence in every council park and open space should start from recorded evidence.8
In its reply to the request, the council said it had received no incidents or complaints and held no underlying data for its proposal. Its officers had already concluded that “the evidence currently available does not sufficiently demonstrate a persistent and continuing detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality across the full area proposed”.2
We have now made our own Freedom of Information request. It does not ask again for incident figures or underlying evidence. It asks where the proposal came from, and how it was justified before it reached Cabinet on 29 June 2026:
The law requires a reply promptly, and normally within 20 working days. We will report what it says here.
We are calling on Brighton & Hove City Council to base any future drone rules on recorded evidence, and to publish it before asking anyone to respond.
What next
The council says further evidence and work is required, and it may gather evidence “should future issues demonstrate a need for additional local controls”.2
The deadline for councillors to call in Cabinet's decision passed on 25 September 2026. The council's decision record now lists the recommendations, including not taking the drone order forward, as approved.1
Officers also recorded real concerns about safety, privacy and nuisance. The best way to keep a blanket ban off the table is to fly well: follow the CAA Drone Code, keep clear of playgrounds and crowds, respect privacy, and report dangerous or anti-social flying.
Report dangerous or anti-social flying to Sussex PoliceThe proposal could come back with a stronger evidence base. If that happens, this site will be updated.
What we argued
These were the core arguments made through the consultation: that the real harms are already covered by CAA rules and police powers, that the citywide evidence was thin, and that targeted restrictions would be more proportionate than a blanket ban. The officers' report (above) reached much the same place.
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.9
A PSPO is not a park guideline, it is an anti-social behaviour power. Under section 67 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, breaching one without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. The £100 the survey asked about was a fixed penalty offered instead of prosecution, not proof the measure was minor. Flying a camera drone under the CAA rules is not anti-social behaviour, and it should not have been enforced like it was.10
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 had been tightened only months before the consultation closed, so we argued the council should let them bed in before adding a local ban.11
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. Appendix 4 agrees: the restriction did not seek to regulate airspace, which remains the CAA's responsibility.12
A PSPO is lawful only where the council is satisfied the activity has a detrimental effect on quality of life that is persistent or continuing, unreasonable, and serious enough to justify the restriction (section 59). The published case leaned on a generic line about children's recreation, with no Brighton & Hove injury, incident or complaint figures. We asked the council to publish evidence that met that test before restricting a lawful, regulated activity across every park. Its own officers later agreed the evidence did not go far enough.8
A PSPO must target specific behaviour and be proportionate. A registered pilot following the Drone Code isn't being anti-social. We argued limits around playgrounds, events or evidenced hotspots would be far more defensible than an all-parks rule, and the officers' recommendation ended up in a similar place.
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 would have hit the people already following the rules.
To be clear
We're drone operators, photographers and residents who wanted sensible rules, and who already followed them. Here's exactly where we stood, and where we still stand if this comes back.
Facing a drone ban where you live?
Any council in England and Wales can propose a PSPO like this one. This site is being open-sourced so that responsible drone users elsewhere can reuse it: the structure, the research approach and the consultation response templates. If your council is proposing a blanket drone ban, get in touch and we will help you get started.
The careful version of each point, because overstating the case helps no one.
No, not at this time. At Cabinet on 17 September 2026, the council did not adopt the proposed order banning drone take-off and landing from council parks and open spaces. The decision says the measure is "not recommended at this time".
Possibly. "Not recommended at this time" is not the same as "never": the council says further evidence and work is required, and it may return to this "should future issues demonstrate a need for additional local controls". If a new proposal appears, we'll update this site.
The deadline for councillors to call in the decision passed on 25 September 2026, and the council's decision record now lists the recommendations, including not taking the drone order forward, as approved. Call-in is the process that lets councillors review a Cabinet decision before it takes effect.
No. The CAA's national rules still apply wherever you fly, and the council can still use land management powers, park byelaws where applicable, and targeted restrictions on specific sites. Dropping a citywide ban is not the same as no rules at all.
132 people responded. 67.4% disagreed with introducing the drone PSPO, the highest level of disagreement of the 12 PSPOs in the council's results report, and 71.2% disagreed that the proposed £100 fine was fair. The council's own officers concluded the legal tests for a citywide order had not been met, while also noting real concerns about safety, privacy and nuisance.
When asked, the council said it held none. In a Freedom of Information reply published on the Grey Arrows forum on 23 September 2026 by the person who made the request, the council said it had received no drone-related incidents, complaints or reports in the last five years, and held no underlying data, reports or correspondence for the June 2026 Cabinet report that proposed the order. That does not prove nobody has ever flown badly here: the reply covers the council's own records, and Sussex Police keeps its own. We have made a further request asking where the proposal came from.
Keep flying within the CAA rules: registration, height limits, distance from people and crowds, and respect for privacy. If you see dangerous or anti-social flying, report it to Sussex Police rather than waiting for a blanket rule to catch it. And if you want to help keep a future ban off the table, fly well and be visible about it.
Yes. We're open-sourcing the structure, the research approach and the consultation response templates so other residents facing a similar proposal don't have to start from scratch. Get in touch (see the Reuse section above) and we'll help you get started.
It can, to a point. Councils can make PSPOs covering their own public spaces, and they control their own land. The point this campaign made is that a parks-wide blanket ban was broader than the published evidence justified. The council's own officers concluded that the evidence did not show a citywide prohibition was a necessary and proportionate response.
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.
