Kensington\u2019s candy-striped house: could you live next door?<\/a>
\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nMr Justice Gilbart, who said the painting of the house had been \u201centirely lawful\u201d, posed the question: \u201cIs it proper to use a section 215 notice where the complaint is not lack of maintenance or repair, but of aesthetics?\u201d<\/p>\n
He ruled that using section 215 \u201cto deal with questions of aesthetics, as opposed to disrepair or dilapidation, falls outside the intention and spirit of the planning code\u201d.<\/p>\n
Gilbart said he noted the crown court\u2019s finding that Lisle-Mainwaring \u201cpainted the house in stripes as a matter or pique\u201d. He added: \u201cShe may well have done, but section 215 does not entitle one to address the motive of a landowner. <\/p>\n
\u201cA garish \u2013 to use the judge\u2019s phrase \u2013 colour scheme may have come about because of an owner\u2019s eccentricity or because of his\/her pique. The section does not apply any differently to the latter than it does to the former.\u201d <\/p>\n
The effect of \u201cupholding this notice will be to give an LPA power to cause buildings to be removed, altered or repainted because the LPA (and magistrates or crown court on appeal) dislikes the appearance thus created, on grounds that relate only to aesthetics\u201d. <\/p>\n
He said: \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Source link <\/a>
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/footer-300x100.png\")
<\/a>
\n