Ignore the reference they make to CAP1788, that has been withdrawn and incorporated into CAP722C
"The establishment of an airspace restriction means that the sponsor is responsible for
managing it, and not that the sponsor ‘owns’ it; airspace is a State asset. There should be
no reason for a Sponsor to charge for access to airspace for UAS. Whilst some burden of
work may exist in processing applications for UAS access to airspace, it is envisaged that
this will not require an undue burden on the Sponsor and should incur negligible time or
cost.
Any such cost should not be passed on to UAS operators, or manned aviation operators -
in the case of a UAS Geographical Zones which facilitates UAS flight by restricting
manned aviation."
"[...] Before issuing a permission to operate within an FRZ, aerodromes are encouraged to
ensure that the operator is in possession of a valid Operator ID, and that the remote pilot is
in possession of suitable pilot competence. This is usually in the form of a CAA issued
‘Flyer ID’, but some other methods of compliance are also in place [...]
Aerodromes may establish standing agreements with UAS operators if this is appropriate,
which would not require individual permissions to be issued for each operation. This may
be the case for local UAS flying groups or model aircraft clubs, located within the
aerodrome FRZ [...]"