Law and Practise - Satellite Dishes

Satellite dishes are a problem issue that is not going to go away. First, there is the question of the personal freedom of 20 million housholds to choose what television they watch and the environmental impact of all those dishes. Sky channel it would seem is particularly popular in West Yorkshire. Secondly, there is the Government’s changing attitude to planning and a move towards the establishment of green credentials. Thirdly, there is the fresh onslaught of British Satellite Broadcasting and its “squariel”, a flat plate 25 cm square. Fourthly, there is the development of planning case law on the subject.

Recently BSB has apparently been seeking changes to the General Development Order which requires permission for second aerials. At issue is whether the DoE is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect the environment and will allow BSB to add squariels to houses which already have dishes to receive Sky channel.

The present position is that one dish no more than 90 cm in diameter is already allowed provided that (a) the house is not listed and (b) the dish does not extend above the roof. Blocks of flats over 15m high or a house in flats can have two dishes (under Part 25 of the GDO). The small size of BSB’s proposed aerial was considered de minirnus and not needing permission.

Now it seems that BSB’s small squariel will not work. BSB wants to transmit five channels, not three, thereby halving the transmission power and more than doubling the size of the receiving aerial to 40 cm square. This has worried the DoE which proposed a consultative document to explore (a) whether houses should be allowed more than one aerial; (b)whether there should be specific rules for listed buildings (but, note, no mention of conservation areas); and (c) whether a house with a Sky channel dish should be allowed a BSB aerial. It is not clear how far this consultation has got and although it is expected shortly, BSB has announced a mid-April start to broadcasting and a £30M advertising campaign.

In November 1989 the Association of District Councils circulated all its members asking for information on the visual impact of dishes after a number of districts had expressed their concern. The ADC felt that the problem had been exacerbated by the 1988 General Development Order which withdrew the restrictions on

dishes in conservation areas which had been in force since 1986. This anomaly in the 1988 GDO had been raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute in May 1989 but the DoE had not replied.

The ADC’s policy is to press the Government to restore the 1986 controls in conservation areas and extend them nationally. Unsurprisingly the DoE has not been, sympathetic to these views.

Provision exists for making Article 4 Directions to restrict satellite dishes. Purbeck District Council has recently had an A4D confirmed for most of the historic part of the Swanage Conservation Area. It is expressed in terms of controlling “installation, alteration or replacement of satellite antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”. The Council argued that even fairly minor additions of this nature could have a damaging cumulative effect.

The area has Purbeck stone buildings with Purbeck slate roofs. These had already been repaired using Section 10 grants. The area around the church and high street was “unmarred by commercial intrusion” and at the point when the Direction was confirmed, no antenna had been established (although there were some nearby). The next step is seen as sensible negotiation on unobtrusive positioning rather than an outright ban.

Conservation areas in Scotland are still protected under the provisions of the 1988 GDO thereby making an A4D un

necessary, but Edinburgh District Council has gone further than most authorities in carrying Out a public information campaign to make residents and suppliers of dishes aware of what restrictions apply. Many dishes erected are not acceptable and must be relocated or removed completely, causing hardship and unnecessary expense for owners. The District Council considers that in most parts of the city acceptable positions can generally be found, often concealed in gardens or within roof valleys in preference to obtrusive positioning on front elevations or on roof ridges.

In Westminster, where the problem may become acute, the City Council is considering the idea of promoting a private Bill to overcome the rights under the GDO. All dishes within the Borough would then need planning permission.

In Coventry, a recent appeal posed some interesting questions. The appellant maintained it was his right to enjoy satellite broadcasting especially with more choice of channels still to come and the proliferation of new aerials. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector took a contrary view. An individual householder’s enthusiasm for a particular interest or pastime, said the Inspector, does not carry with it an automatic right to display the associated equipment without regard for other considerations. A balance had to be struck in urban areas between personal liberty and the impact on the community and the environment on the other.