Does your neighbour own the airspace over his land?

[JG3]

 

 

Not sure these laws apply here, but the old common law probably does.

[turboplanner]

With a US accent, I would thunk he would be talking about US Law which doesn't apply in Australia.

In Australian Jurisdictions, not all States and Territories will necessarily have the same laws.

For Victoria you could give these people a call:  http://tlfc.com.au/air-rights-faq/#:~:text=For the most part%2C owners,sale of the air rights.

 

 

 

[onetrack]

From another website;

 

"Legally, in Australia, property owners own “to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it”. But, what exactly constitutes “ordinary use” is open to legal interpretation."

Dr Cait Storr, lecturer in property and legal theory at Melbourne Law School, says - 

“When we talk about air rights, the title is really misleading,” she says. “Because it’s not actually air that is being bought and sold, it’s the right to develop, or the right to veto development of, particular volumes of space.”

 

Interesting cases involving air trespass are redefining property rights in Australia. Last year, a developer, Steller, was instructed by the Supreme Court to remove their crane hanging over a family’s neighbouring home in Elwood, Melbourne.

"The crane constitutes an actual trespass," said Justice Riordan, the judge who heard the case and who made the judgement.

 

While planes are allowed to fly over your home, what about drones? “There’s been quite a bit of debate about drones flying over property. At what point is it a nuisance, considering that drones can come in quite close?” says Dr Storr.

After all, you can’t legally stop someone from looking at your house. “People can look over the fence,” says Dr Storr. “This is why it’s difficult to ground any legal action against a drone flying over your property.”

As the states continue to slowly redefine property rights in the courts, its vital to remember that property law, is not “really about our private rights over things,” says Dr Storr. “It’s about managing collective access to scarce resources. Its about our relationships with each other.”

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by onetrack

[IBob]

10 hours ago, onetrack said:

At what point is it a nuisance, considering that drones can come in quite close?” says Dr Storr.

 

 

Maybe take up skeet shooting????

[FlyBoy1960]

Interesting video, provoked a few new thoughts.

[onetrack]

I can recall being on another forum about 20 yrs ago, which was populated about 98% by Americans who were rural or semi-rural people - and they were nearly all classic, right wing, gun-toting people, who believed they had the right to react to "intrusions" or "trespass" (of any kind) with the use of firearms.

One of the contributors relished telling the story of how a neighbour regularly flew his RC aircraft over the boundaries of his property - and because the noise annoyed him as well - he produced a firearm, and shot one of the offending RC aircraft down.

The RC aircraft owner displayed anger from his location on his property, but didn't lodge any official complaint. There were no face-to-face discussions with the neighbour over the intrusion/s.

 

As we all know, the ability to carry out this kind of (shooting down) action is looked upon favourably in most of America - and of course, it's one of their cherished "rights" - their "right" to "protect" their "property".

But here in Australia, we have no such rights, and you would be (rightfully) charged with criminal damage, if you shot down an intruding drone or RC aircraft.

 

The laws relating to taking intrusive photos of people when they aren't warned about it, or prepared for it, have been beefed up in recent years - driven largely by pedos photographing children at play without permission.

There are always people looking to take photos or videos of people indulging in "private activities" if they can, so they can sell the photos or videos.

But the laws now say you cannot video or photograph anyone that believes they're carrying out activity in a "private place", on property they own - without their permission.

 

Many large minesites, industrial properties, and areas where secrecy is demanded, where advanced industrial or military activity is being carried out, have camera bans and overflight bans.

I have no idea how these bans are enforced, because if someone is dead set on photographing, videoing, or overflying a "banned" area - unless that activity is specifically banned in law, or by a specific Act, it is then up to the offended party to pursue court action to prevent the activity.

 

"Paparazzi", of course, are a huge problem in this area, once you become extremely famous or newsworthy. Fortunately, I'm neither, so I don't have any problem to address in that area - but I can imagine how difficult it would be, to try and prevent people "spying" on you aerially, looking for information, or images that they can sell.

I know of "vintage vehicle" collectors, who utilise aircraft to "suss" out properties that might be hiding "collectable" cars, trucks and tractors - which, when they do spot something interesting, they try to track down the owner of the item.

You might think that old Holden or Ford wreck lying up the back paddock is junk - but to many people today, that's now a fortune just lying there, rotting away.

[spacesailor]

I ' found ' a Holden chasis on a farm dump, l checked the serial on number and it was in the hundreds.

Made in America, the Australian body long gone, with only the rear axle attached.

BUT

In a ' lean to ' shed was a old wooden spoked flat back truck.

Could have been Ford Or Chevrolet.  The property manager said it has been in the ' falling down ' shed, three owners ago. & only the owner could let it go.

spacesailor