The appellant argued that an article 4 direction issued in 1992 withdrew permitted development rights in respect of the General Development Order 1988 but not the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995, which granted different permitted development rights in respect of satellite dishes. As there was no effective direction in place, she claimed that the satellite dish was permitted development.
The council relied on section 17(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978, which states that where an act repeals and re-enacts with or without modification a previous enactment, "it shall have effect as if made or done under that provision". The inspector took the view that there was no express saving of article 4 directions in the 1995 GPDO because they were given continued effect by the Interpretation Act. He therefore accepted the council's view of the law and concluded that planning permission was needed.
Turning to the planning merits, the inspector observed that the house was set well back from the main facades of the rest of the square and that the dish was discreetly located well back on the flank wall of the house. He concluded that its visual impact upon the street scene was barely discernible and that although the character of the conservation area was not complemented or enhanced, it was preserved.
DCS No: 34001506; Inspector: Colin Johnson; Written representations.