Just read the article published by the Isleworth Society about satellite dishes and I have to say I think it's OTT. To devote several paragraphs of the article to the fact that the Enforcement Team at Hounslow decided to say that a satellite dish is permitted development as long as it meets certain criteria, whereas the Society wanted the report author to say that a satellite dish isn't permitted development unless it meets certain criteria is in my opinion farcical - there is no actual difference in the meaning, implied or otherwise.Secondly the article itself is completely contradictory, on page 1 it talks about the onus being on the LPA to "take action if it considers that (typo deleted - presumably the authors meant to write "the satellite dish" harms the amenity of the area" yet on page 2 the authors write "It is also obvious - in respect of an unauthorised dish sited on a chimney, wall or roof slope which faces onto, and is visible from, a highway – that enforcement action should be taken." So by the latter comment the authors are saying that the test of expediency based on an individual case by case merit test isn't one the authors support.To be clear, I don't actually disagree with the authors concerns, but to go about it by making pathetic little arguments about the precise wording of an Officers report, and then for the authors of this letter to completely contradict themselves about the test of expediency on a case by case merit, really doesn't add any credibility to their concerns.
Adam Beamish ● 6074d