®Planning appeal decision
Moorings at 106 Cheyne Walk, London, SW10 0DG
Planning appeal 3345933 at Moorings at 106 Cheyne Walk, London, SW10 0DG (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) was decided (quashed on legal grounds) on 1 November 2024 by Inspector Moore D, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the Appellant has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the matters alleged – the material change of use of the Land through intensification by the mooring of two significantly different houseboats (currently named “the Pacifica” and “the Zephyr”) – does not constitute a breach of planning control.
Material change of use of the land through intensification by the mooring of two significantly different houseboats (the Pacifica and the Zephyr)
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Moore D
- Postcode
- SW10 0DG
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the Appellant has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the matters alleged – the material change of use of the Land through intensification by the mooring of two significantly different houseboats (currently named “the Pacifica” and “the Zephyr”) – does not constitute a breach of planning control
- Whether the Council's refusal of an LDC is well-founded, turning on whether the Appellant has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the use of the land for the mooring of up to 60 houseboats in residential use, including the Pacifica and the Zephyr, was lawful at the date of the application
What decided it
The Inspector concluded that the addition of the two larger houseboats did not cause a fundamental change in the definable character of the use of the moorings as a whole.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CD4Policy CD15Policy CD9
- Judgments
- Burdle & Williams v SSE & New Forest DC [1972] 1 WLR 1207; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No 1) [2000] EWCA Civ 60, [2001] JPL 1025; Thames Heliports PLC v LB Tower Hamlets (1997) 74 P&CR 164; R (KP JR Management Co Ltd) v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2018] JPL 838; Hertfordshire CC v SSCLG & Metal and Waste Recycling Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1473; Barton Park Estates Ltd v SSHCLG & Dartmoor NPA [2022] EWCA Civ 833
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Planning permission granted23 July 20263328929Flat 5, 69 Oxford Gardens, London, W10 5UJ
- Quashed On Legal Grounds5 May 20263340011The Mews, 1A Victoria Gardens, London, W11 3PE
- Notice upheld11 February 2026335269912-14 Pottery Lane, London, W11 4LZ
- Planning permission granted26 January 20263359961Land at 23, And 25-27 Earl’s Court Square, London, SW5 9BY
- Split Decision26 January 20263359770Land at 23, And 25-27 Earl's Court Square, London, SW5 9DA
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.