R (Lisle-Mainwaring) v Isleworth Crown Court & Anor [2017] EWHC 904 (Admin)
The point in plain English: Section 215 is not a general power to make a property look the way the council prefers. Where an appearance has resulted from lawful works in the ordinary course, the statutory appeal protection can prevent section 215 being used simply to reverse those works.
What happened
The case concerned the well-known red-and-white striped house in Kensington. Painting the exterior did not require express planning permission and was lawful under the planning regime then applicable.
The council served a section 215 notice requiring the property to be repainted white, arguing that its condition adversely affected local amenity.
What the High Court decided
Gilbart J held that the word “condition” in section 215 can include appearance, but the power is not a free-standing aesthetic control. Section 217(1)(b) provides a statutory ground of appeal where the condition complained of results in the ordinary course of events from carrying out lawful operations or using the land lawfully.
The section 215 outcome was quashed. If a council wishes to control otherwise lawful external alterations or painting, it must use the planning mechanisms Parliament has provided rather than stretch section 215 beyond its purpose.
Why Lisle-Mainwaring matters
The case puts an important limit around section 215. Untidy-land powers can be powerful, but they do not give an authority a general design veto over lawful development.
For the practical application of this judgment to painting proposals, see our GPDO Part 2 Class C exterior painting guide. The judgment, handed down on 24th April 2017, is particularly useful at paragraphs 87 and 97 to 106. It does not displace separate listed building consent, advertisement controls, a valid Article 4 direction or relevant planning conditions.
Planning Geek explains the current procedure and appeal grounds on our section 215 notice page.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.