Court rules woman can keep her 'eyesore' red and white striped townhouse

A woman who infuriated her neighbours by decorating her multimillion-pound townhouse with red and white stripes has won a legal battle meaning she doesn’t have to repaint it.

Property developer Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, 67, painted candy stripes on the facade of the three-storey terraced building in South End, Kensington, London, in March 2015.

She has denied that the paint job was done to spite neighbours — who objected to her plans to demolish the property and replace it with a new home.

Mr Justice Gilbart, who said the painting of the house had been “entirely lawful”.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had served her with a notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, setting out steps required to be taken within 28 days, including “repainting all external paintwork located on the front elevation white”.

It said the notice was being served “because it appears to the council 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.”

MORE: Horrified woman thinks dying man on cigarette packet is her dad
MORE: Ukip candidate says she is attracted to gorillas and we should bring back the guillotine

After failed appeals to magistrates and Isleworth Crown Court last year over the requirement to repaint the property white, Ms Lisle-Mainwaring launched judicial review action at the High Court in London.

But on Monday, a judge ruled in her favour and quashed the notice.

Mr Justice Gilbart said he noted the Crown Court’s earlier finding that Ms Lisle-Mainwaring “painted the house in stripes as a matter of pique”.

“A garish – to use the judge’s phrase – colour scheme may have come about because of an owner’s eccentricity or because of his/her pique. The section 215 [under the Town and Country Planning Act] does not apply any differently to the latter than it does to the former.”

He added: “I am therefore of the view that it is an improper use of Section 215 to use it to alter a lawful painting scheme, when there is no suggestion that there is any want of maintenance or repair in the land.”

Last year, Ms Lisle-Mainwaring criticised her neighbours for “wading in” to the dispute.

She said: “I have had a neighbour who has certainly waded in as if they are St George on the dragon; perhaps the dragon rather than St George.”

Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring, who splits her time between the UK and Switzerland with properties registered in London and Geneva, bought the townhouse in 2012.