Man who painted Mary Poppins mural on his Kensington townhouse with out permission is allowed to maintain it after profitable bitter planning battle

A mural of Mary Poppins flying across a Kensington townhouse has been dramatically spared after a planning inspector overruled furious councillors who demanded its removal.

The artwork, showing the famous nanny silhouetted against a red heart while clutching her umbrella and carpet bag, was painted on the side of a property in Earls Court Square as a ‘message of hope’ in response to natural disasters in Africa.

Patrick Spens, 56, commissioned the artwork on the roof of his upmarket West London home in October 2023 – only to be told by Kensington and Chelsea council that it breached strict conservation area rules.

Town hall officials launched enforcement action after councillors voted it through – despite their own planning officers initially advising against taking any action.

Now after a 14-month planning saga, the independent Planning Inspectorate has ruled the giant mural can remain.

Inspector Grahame Kean concluded that the artwork causes ‘no harm’ to the historic square and ‘if anything enhances it slightly’.

At the height of the row, Mr Spens hit back at what he called attempts to ‘whitewash a symbol of hope’, pointing to the contrast with crowds flocking to see a Banksy mural that appeared overnight in Finsbury Park.

‘There’s a new Banksy out today,’ he said at the time. ‘I bet the council won’t demand its removal!’

Patrick Spens, 56, commissioned the artwork on the roof of his upmarket West London home in October 2023

The resident had collected signatures from local residents to stop the council ‘whitewashing’ his painting

Mr Spens, a retired consultant, previously told the Daily Mail how the idea came during a low moment at home with his daughter following floods in Libya and the Al Haouz earthquake in Morocco – both of which claimed thousands of lives.

‘I was in a really bad place. I was sitting on the roof saying, ‘God, the world’s in a terrible place at the moment. I want to paint something as a symbol of hope,’ and she said, ‘just get on with it.’”

Mr Spens commissioned artist Saffina Tarbuck – granddaughter of comedian Jimmy Tarbuck to paint the mural in the dark to avoid complaints.

Despite gathering signatures from neighbours and widespread online support, councillors voted in December 2024 to pursue enforcement action – describing the mural to Mr Spens as ‘harmful graffiti’.

Local councillor Hamish Adourian insisted at a town hall meeting that the streets and buildings of Kensington and Chelsea were ‘not a canvas’.

He added: ‘I do like Mary Poppins. I do enjoy the film, but, committee, not here.’

Earl’s Court Square Residents’ Association chair Chrissie Courtney meanwhile said the association had been calling for the mural’s removal since February 2024.

She argued allowing it to remain in place would set an ‘unmanageable precedent’.

Earls Court Square lies within a tightly controlled conservation area, which means even painting an exterior wall normally requires permission.

Terraces must be traditionally painted a specific shade of magnolia with white woodwork, and even house numbers recommended in black Garamond font and a specific seven inches tall.

Mr Kean said in his ruling: ‘Cherry Tree Lane in London does not exist in real life.

‘However, Earls Court Square does. In the council’s view, the appeal site is no place for the unauthorised development the subject of the enforcement notice. ‘

But after visiting the site, the inspector took a very different view.

He noted the mural is visible only from limited angles and is barely noticed by passers-by, writing that during his inspection he watched people walk through the square – and ‘not one looked up to anywhere near the mural’.

At the height of the row, Mr Spens pointed to the contrast of crowds flocking to see a Banksy mural that had appeared in Finsbury Park

In the unusually poetic ruling, Mr Kean even referenced supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, breaking the Mary Poppins word down into its parts and comparing the rhythm of the exclusive postcode’s Victorian terraces to musical metre – with repeating windows, doors and rooflines acting like stressed and unstressed syllables.

He said the mural did not disrupt this visual rhythm, instead acting as a slight ’embellishment’ to a natural break in the buildings’ height, adding that it merely ‘punctuates’ the roofline rather than harming it.

Mr Kean also dismissed council claims that neighbours were affected.

Planning permission was formally granted and the enforcement notice quashed.