90-year-old woman faces €1,500 bill after satellite dish case

TAFKAlawhec

mamax wrote: »

But to get back on topic those idiots should have some cop on taking a 90 year old woman to court, Im not suggesting they should have overlooked it but a bit of common sense really would have gone a long way here, it's all a bit Irish aint it :eek:

I would say that had they overlooked it, it would have been a bit Irish itself either though authorities selectively applying rules, or people thinking that when told of breaches that it shouldn't apply to them.

TAFKAlawhec

obezyana wrote: »

Dishes cannot be placed on the front of a house without planning.

They cannot be higher than the highest point of the roof.

Planning is needed for any dish bigger than 1 meter in diameter.

Aerials cannot be any higher than 6 meters from the roof of the house.

Anymore than one dish needs planning permission.

I've been curious as to what the rules were in the south, seems like this is the baseline - I though it was dependent on the local authority.

Seem they're stricter than up north here, where...

* Dishes can be placed on the front wall of a house

* If the building does not have a chimney, no part of dish can be higher than the highest part of the roof, however if there is a chimney and is fitted to it, it must not go above the highest point of the chimney and the face be no more than 60cm wide in diameter in any direction (i.e. Sky Zone 2 dishes will all fail on this point). Dishes fitted on a building with a chimney
but not on it can not be more than 60cm above the roof line of the tallest point of the chimney, whichever is lower.

* You are permitted to have two dishes within your property boundary, one no more than 100cm diameter in any direction on its face and a second one no more than 60cm diameter in any direction. Beyond this you're supposed to apply for PP.

* General radio and TV aerials installed for receiving broadcasts aren't subject to requiring planning permission regardless of size above the roof line, however a radio mast itself requires PP.

* If you live in the likes of a conservation area, AONB etc. then stricter rules apply - in general a dish installed should not be visible from a public road.

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/advice_apply/advice_apply_homes/advice_home_work2/advice_home_sataerial.htm

To be perfectly honest, these rules tend to be as strongly enforced as much as the southern authorities do themselves. In fact I've never heard of a case locally of a planning authority sending an enforcement notice regarding a satellite dish.

There are different rules regarding building that are taller than 15 metres above the ground - in their case, you can have up to four antennas up to 130cm in diameter each.

The Cush

The Cush wrote: »

The councils, it appears, will only act if a complaint is made.

muffler wrote: »

In the case of satellite dishes that would be the case generally. It's one type of unauthorized development they don't proactively seek out.

obezyana wrote: »

I know the councils have to act on this when requested to do so and that woman should of acted in a more suitable time frame but what about the thousands of homes etc out there who have dishes out front. If a law is being broken where it is so obvious then why do they need somebody to actually make a complaint before they act? Im not saying I agree with the law on this but it seems a bit silly to only act if asked. Not many people or even installers have a clue about the law in the first place and maybe this type of thing shows the need for the industry to be regulated.

This was confirmed today by Dublin City Council, to people who telephoned their office in relation to situation with front mounted dishes, that "they will not enforce the front of the house rule and they will only act on the basis of complaints and complaints only"

Liveline today, http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10472933%3A0%3A%3A (discussion starts 35 mins. in, ends 1:00 hr)

pingitagain

Well there you go

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1001/731682-tipperary-burglary-sentence/

Some of these were given 7 years off their sentance of 12 years whats that about 60%

Gang terrorise couple get 60% off
State terrorise pensioner and some people here think it's ok

No such leniency for this poor woman
Some threat to the state she must be

moleyv

The 1500 (costs were over 2000, they settled on 1500)was for taking her to court.

If she responded to the letters, maybe they wouldn't have had to do that.....

pingitagain

moleyv wrote: »

The 1500 (costs were over 2000, they settled on 1500)was for taking her to court.

If she responded to the letters, maybe they wouldn't have had to do that.....

Ah get over yourself

Your insensitivity is astounding

No doubt you think the above mentioned gang should be put up in the clarion

Sam Russell

What was the percentage of motorists getting penalty points that got off because they never received their letter in the post? 80% but much more in Kerry.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1001/731666-road-offences-courts/

They did not have to pay court costs.

ThisRegard

You guys are comparing apples and oranges.

She's not paying court costs, she's paying towards the costs towards incurred by the legal team for the council.

pingitagain

ThisRegard wrote: »

You guys are comparing apples and oranges.

She's not paying court costs, she's paying towards the costs towards incurred by the legal team for the council.

No you are comparing common sense with the letter of the law
In this case it is an ass

Even Enda muppet suggested as much

This should have never been brought to court

ThisRegard

You're right, she had ample opportunity to avoid all this.

You're advocating an age limit on the law?

pingitagain

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're right, she had ample opportunity to avoid all this.

No the state had every chance to avoid looking like insensitive assholes

pingitagain

Your turn

ThisRegard

What are you , 12?

pingitagain

No thats your level of compassion for the older generation on a scale of 100

Also you may want to reconsider you user name to Hint
NoRegard :-)

googled eyes

So would this court case mean that thousands of people with house front satellite dishes would need to retroactively apply for pp ?

obezyana

googled eyes wrote: »

So would this court case mean that thousands of people with house front satellite dishes would need to retroactively apply for pp ?

If a complaint was made then action may be taken, if not then no need for anyone to worry.

icdg

Pingitagain take a warning. If you can't be civil please don't contribute to the thread.

pingitagain

icdg wrote: »

Pingitagain take a warning. If you can't be civil please don't contribute to the thread.

A bit Heavy Handed mod comment

If noregard cant handle it then :-)
Nothing was uncivil
The obviouus attack on a poor old lady by the state is a joke
the attempts by some posters on this site to discredit her is a joke
If no comment to the contary is allowed
then shame on you all


If you want to ban me then ban me but dont pretend
that it is for some thing uncivil
Rather than your overinflated senses of importance with your bold type
Duh:eek:

Good luck & goodbye

Sam Russell

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're right, she had ample opportunity to avoid all this.

The dish was removed quite some time before the court case. Normally compliance ends the case,

The solicitor for the council has 9 other cases and got paid €800 for each one, so losing one fee would not be much in the scheme of things - he would still have tomorrows cases to milk.

icdg

The usual rule applies as per anyone who decides to take a "parting shot" (sadly it seems a more common occurrence) - if you come back you will be banned on your first offence without any warning. Bold text is now standard for moderators across Boards to distinguish between moderation and contribution.

Harry Palmr

Case dismissed, some sense by the courts shocker