Judge saves Lisle-Mainwaring’s stripes from whitewash
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, the owner of the now-famous striped house in Kensington, W8, has triumphed in a fight to avoid having to repaint it – for now.
In the latest court ruling involving the multi-million pound townhouse, Gilbart J quashed a notice issued by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ordering Lisle-Mainwaring to paint over the red and white candy stripes on the building in South End, Kensington.
Lisle-Mainwaring has been involved in a long-running fight to use the property residentially since she purchased it in 2012. The stripes were painted in 2015, but Kensington and Chelsea served a section 215 notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring it to be repainted white, on the basis that the amenity of a part of their area is “adversely affected” by the condition of the land.
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, the owner of the now-famous striped house in Kensington, W8, has triumphed in a fight to avoid having to repaint it – for now.
In the latest court ruling involving the multi-million pound townhouse, Gilbart J quashed a notice issued by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ordering Lisle-Mainwaring to paint over the red and white candy stripes on the building in South End, Kensington.
Lisle-Mainwaring has been involved in a long-running fight to use the property residentially since she purchased it in 2012. The stripes were painted in 2015, but Kensington and Chelsea served a section 215 notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring it to be repainted white, on the basis that the amenity of a part of their area is “adversely affected” by the condition of the land.
The notice stated: “The condition and appearance of the property, particularly the red and white painted stripes on the front elevation, is incongruous with the streetscape of South End and the local area.”
Lisle-Mainwaring failed in appeals to magistrates and the crown court, but now Gilbart J has upheld her judicial review challenge.
The judge said that the painting of the house was “entirely lawful”, and asked: “Is it proper to use a section 215 notice where the complaint is not lack of maintenance or repair, but of aesthetics?”
He continued: “In my judgment, to allow a local planning authority to use section 215 to deal with questions of aesthetics, as opposed to disrepair or dilapidation, falls outside the intention and spirit of the planning code.”
He said that Kensington and Chelsea could have used alternative powers that would have entitled Lisle-Mainwaring rights to modest compensation, without imposing a criminal liability on her if she failed to comply.
To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
