Don't show this message again

We have placed cookies on your computer to help make this website better. You can view our cookie policy or find out more about cookies by visiting or Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.

Candy Striped House Served Notice Under The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Victoria Charlesson

Victoria Charlesson, Solicitor in our Planning Law team, reviews the case of a candy striped house who was served notice to repaint it white. 

This is the case of a lady who decided to paint the outside of her house in red and white ‘candy’ stripes. The local Council- The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea- were not best pleased with the new look of the property and decided to serve her with a notice under S.215 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ‘TCPA 1990’ requiring that all the exterior of the building was repainted in white. 

Ms Mainwaring was unsuccessful in both the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court, however despite this Ms Mainwaring decided to launch a judicial review action in the High Court against the decision to issue the notice. One of the issues before the Court was whether the Council was entitled to serve a notice under s215 of TCPA 1990 in this particular instance. 

Section 215 of the TCPA states that “if it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area, they may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section.”

In determining the matter Gilbart J considered Section 215 in the light of the Planning Code as a whole and determined that Section 215 was not designed to deal with questions of aesthetics or taste nor is it there to limit permitted development. 

Gilbart J deemed that allowing Section 215 to be used for aesthetic reasons and not those of dilapidation or repair was “outside the intention and spirit of the Planning Code” and Parliament has not sought to prevent a landowner from painting their house in any colour they may choose.

Gilbart J concluded that there were other options available to Local Planning Authorities and as such the use of a Section 215 notice in this instance was improper and consequently the notice was quashed. 

For more information, please contact Victoria Charlesson or a member of our Planning Law team.

This blog article was produced with support from Sophie Stone.

This article is intended for the use of clients and other interested parties. The information contained in it is believed to be correct at the date of publication, but it is necessarily of a brief and general nature and should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific professional advice.