It seems some spurious information is buzzin around in the electronic ether, and its basically that, a license is needed to operate radio equipment on National Trust property. Now the conflicting comments are that some say yes this is true, which has come from an MT member who stated he was in possesion of one, others say its not required as SOTA operations has been classified as low impact and thus no license is required. We cannot track down the MT member who is allegedly in possesion of such license, so if anyone can offer clarification on this whole matter I would be grateful, on behalf of the many SOTA activators, as we do not need any negative publicity should one of our activators be caught out with this legislation. I am intending to activate The Cloud sometime this year and dont want to be caught out by this rule.
Is it possible for the MT member who has this license to come forward and explain how to get one, if its required on all NT summits or just some of them.
Wow, I must admit haven’t heard this either but I wonder if what it really means is that the NT prefer that you have a licence (ie. your amateur radio license) rather than operating say PMR 446 (which is by it’s nature licence free) without any license at all.
I always try to to carry a copy of one of mine to whip out if challenged/asked… but I must admit that’s more about travelling abroad than SOTA activations :-).
Or are you referring to a “permission slip” to be operating on the property rather than a license?
The Scarborough Special Events Group regularly operate Special Events Stations from historic Monuments, such as Scabrough Castle, owned by English Heritage.
Before we can operate we must give written assurance that we will comply with their regulations, such as obtaining public liability insurance, no wires or equipment attached to historic buildings, no guys driven more than 6 inches into the ground, all mains equipment issued with an electrical safety certificate etc. We are then issued with a “permission to operate” which could be termed a “licence”.
However, this is for a base station, albeit temporary, where the general public are present.
Perhaps the National Trust have a similar scheme, but I would not expect this to apply to portable operations.
73
Roy G4SSH
Chairman
Scarborough Special Events Group
GX0OOO
In reply to M0LMP:
Lee
This has been aired before after a large non SOTA group activated the cloud and were asked to leave. The old Yahoo reflector Message #12814 gives the response from the NT and as you say above there is no requirement for a licence to transmit on NT land provided your activation is low impact.
As the old reflector is not readily accessible any more I quote the message:=
"SOTA participants who subscribe to this group will be aware that there have
been instances where people doing activations have been asked to leave by
National Trust wardens. Such instances are very rare - especially when
compared to the number of activations that have taken place on NT
land and are outweighed by occasions when wardens have tacitly allowed
activations.
A SOTA participant recently contacted the Trust in an attempt to clarify the
access position. Although done with the best of intentions, this was a
high-risk course of action that was taken without discussion with the SOTA
Management Team. A reply has now been received from the National Trust and
fortunately it is quite positive. The relevant part of the reply is copied
below and is from the Trust’s Head of Access and Recreation.
“With regards to the Trust’s approach to allowing the use of its properties
by transreceiver operators we can see no difficulty in allowing such
activity without the need for formal permission. There may be some local
circumstances where permission should be sought but from an
organisation perspective this to my mind is a low impact activity.”
Activators intending to do activations on National Trust land should be
aware that this is not a charter to do as we wish but rather it simply
maintains what has always been the situation with regard to low impact
activities on Trust land.
The key thing here is that our activities must been seen as having a “low
impact” and it remains the case that SOTA activators should defer to the
wishes of NT staff and volunteer wardens - they are effectively charged with
assessing “impact” on the ground. It also remains the case that one of the
Trust’s Byelaws (believed to date from 1965) precludes the use of Trust Land
for broadcasting. Putting aside whether we broadcast or not, this byelaw has
been quoted to activators by wardens in the past as the sole reason why they
should not be there and remains as a potential point of conflict. It is also
the case that Trust land is effectively privately owned (as is virtually all
land in England and Wales) and it is not the case that we have any special
rights to do activations.
At present the SOTA MT does not intend opening up further dialogue with the
National Trust; we will however be updating our environmental page at www.sota.org.uk over the winter to include a simple Code of Practice for
activators. We also wish to monitor the access situation and to that
effect we would be grateful of reports of access problems. Such reports
should be sent direct to the Management Team.
Please also read the guidance on access and related issues at:
From the SOTA Management Team"
However I think you are well aware of this and the crux seems to be whether a licence could be obtained. The trust does issue licences for such things as deer stalking, metal detecting and flying model aircraft. These are really permits. I have in the past obtained a permit to operate a special event station from an NT property so they are available.
As for an MT member having a licence I know you have had answers on your own board from two of the MT so why are you asking again here?
Thanks Marc (AZS)and Roy (SSH) for the info and help, it seems permit is the correct phrase for something like this, so I am going to do some more checking, to include a call to the NT.
Roger (OWG)
Thanks for the extract from the old reflector, shines a little light on the whole scenario, and refering to your closing line Roger quote "As for an MT member having a licence I know you have had answers on your own board from two of the MT so why are you asking again here? un quote
Well …no, we have not had the answer, but we did reaceive a blatant lie from an MT member who denies such knowledge of a licence when he does in fact own one! Such actions highlight the question of honesty and decorum and are not to be taken lightly. I am asking here to hopefully gain clarification from a wider audience who have much experience on these matters, and I am not convinced with the answers received so far from the MT members. I am not going to go boldly beyond without being sure of the legalities.
So your willing to jeopardise SOTA (how much of the LD alone do the NT own?)to prove a point? based on an unsubstantiated allegation. The NT will not want to be involved in issuing licences as it will cost them more than they can charge just to police it. So it is very likely, if they detect a possible conflict, they will issue a blanket ban which costs them nothing.
By the way is that a royal we?
In reply to G4OWG:
Royal wee’s take place behind palace doors not on this reflector.
Jeopardise SOTA to prove a point ? you have lost me there Roger, are you saying that I should continue to operate on NT property with out a license ? possibly putting myself and the SOTA service at risk of prosecution or worse still bringing negative publicity upon SOTA ?
The NT wont need to police the situation they will just check the logs on the SOTA site to find times places and callsigns !!
Anyway, back on topic, if anyone knows anything about a permit or such like please let me know.
“We cannot track down the MT member who is allegedly in possesion of such license, so if anyone can offer clarification on this whole matter I would be grateful, on behalf of the many SOTA activators, as we do not need any negative publicity should one of our activators be caught out with this legislation.”
Then you wrote:
“Well …no, we have not had the answer, but we did reaceive a
blatant lie from an MT member who denies such knowledge of a licence
when he does in fact own one!”
In other words, you believe you have been lied to by one of two people.
Since it is a matter of record that I am one of the MT members who replied, I do not like the implication that I might have been telling lies.
In reply to M0LMP:
Lee
I am simply pointing out that if a large body such as the NT perceive adverse publicity via a group using their land it is easier for them to issue a ban.This would seriously curtail SOTA activity for all of us. Surely thats not what you want to happen?
To quote your source though (Text removed at Steve’s request but was repeated in his next post.) it appears that there is no problem with activating on NT land at present. I will leave it for others to read the full story behind this thread (and to read other threads - I’ve even got one about me ) on www.sotaforum.co.uk. You have to register but you can delete your account after reading if you so wish.One post has been deleted but I have a copy of it.
If you read my last post on your forum Lee you will see I said I would no longer post on there but would continue to read. There is no need ‘to lay off’ and I have no aspirations to be in any management team. I retired from one and life’s so much easier without the hassle
The seeking of clarification for the greater good of SOTA participants is the most important issue here, we are told in the SOTA T&C’s that each individual is to seek permission to operate from the relevant land owner, I would like to make sure that If I activate a summit on NT land I am not breaking any rules or laws, simple as that, and this thread will act as a clarification for others that were not aware of such requirements. It may also raise the question, if someone did know about this license, as to why we werent all made aware of it !!
Roger, you added a line after a quote that says " it appears that there is no problem with activating on NT land at present" could I ask where you got this information from, as I would not like to act upon HEARSAY !!
Lee
PS Roger not sure where you got your source quote from could you let me know via email or PM. Oh it seems you deleted it (quote) at at my request, sorry, but exactly how did I request you to remove the quote, I havent sent you any communication at all Roger !
In reply to M0LMP:
As I said Lee - one post has been deleted.
But as the author repeated it verbatim on here identifying himself it can’t really be classed as hearsay ??? Does that answer your PS - I deleted it and apologised - Brian deleted it but didn’t realise it was Steve and not you who requested it.
In reply to G4OWG:
Right ok Roger, but the point I am making is you said and I quote your post “it appears that there is no problem with activating on NT land at present” from where did you get this information ?
In reply to M0LMP:
Without the deleted quote the paragraph is out of context.
As I cannot reinstate what was said,but I’m sure you know what was, and it has disappeared from where it was originally (wonder why?) there is no point trying to answer your question. I’m sure enough people read the original to get the gist.
Just been reading your forum and there is a post there which I feel needs posting here. I feel it answers a lot of questions on this topic. I see Brian is given permission to post it but feel it would be better from the original author as it explains the deletion of a post on your forum and has increased considerably my estimation of the writer, who I have found quite acerbic to my posts in the past.
The following quote made it quite clear that there are in general no problems in activating NT summits:
“The relevant part of the reply is copied below and is from the Trust’s Head of Access and Recreation.”
“With regards to the Trust’s approach to allowing the use of its properties
by transreceiver operators we can see no difficulty in allowing such
activity without the need for formal permission. There may be some local
circumstances where permission should be sought but from an
organisation perspective this to my mind is a low impact activity.”
That is perfectly lucid. One might be permitted to speculate about the “local circumstances” and here the experience of rock climbers might be relevant. Some inland crags and sea cliffs are closed in the nesting season for the protection of birds. Some mountain crags might be closed at certain times of the year during deer culls. And so on. Such temporary closures are usually well signposted. It is well worth bearing in mind that in general rock climbing is not forbidden on Trust properties except for the above mentioned closures and for certain crags where dislodged rocks might be a danger to other people, such as where a well used public footpath runs below crags known to have loose material on them. You might think that rock climbing is also a low impact activity, but you have probably never seen the contrast between an unclimbed crag covered in vegetation and loose rock, and its bare appearance after it has been “gardened” to allow routes to be put up it: sometimes tons of material might be dislodged from abseil. Then there are the “sport climbing” crags covered in rock bolts and hangers…but don’t get me started on them!
It seems to me that the access situation for SOTA is adequately well defined. If an individual warden quotes the regulation about “broadcasting”, it might be worth pointing out to him/her that our license conditions expressly forbid broadcasting. If the warden insists, pack up with good grace and inform the AM and the MT.
With regard to the deleted quote: I acted in deference to the point about copyright violation: if the owners of the site permit, I will restore the quote.
I might be wrong but I think that the main point here has been missed. We have a situation where a member of our MT possibly holds a licencese to operate from NT land namely the cloud. No MT member appears to have come forward and admitted that this is true in fact 2 MT members deny knowledge of any such license. If one of those 2 MT members does hold such a license but has said they have no knowledge of the licence to his MT members or to sota people in general, that person must have lied to both parties and should leave the MT because he can’t be trusted in the future.
Surely the same person should have let all activators know of such a license rather than risk them getting into trouble or worse sota getting bad publicity.
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Barry
Whilst I am in partial agreement with what your saying I fear it was missed because of the convoluted way the initial argument was presented.
In reply to G8ADD:
Brian
Please read the other site - there appears now to be a partial retraction/clarification (2006) which puts a different slant on things.
As I said previously could the original author post then there can be no concerns over misquoting, copyright or veracity.
Thanks for the offer to quote Steve but I will decline.
) on