R (on the application of KP JR Management Company Ltd) v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames [2018] EWHC 84 (Admin)
KP JR Management is a Planning Court judgment about the correct planning unit for a Thames mooring, whether long-running residential use of boats had become lawful, and whether increasing the number of residential boats amounted to a material change of use. The High Court upheld Richmond Council’s certificate of lawfulness and dismissed both judicial review claims.
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.
- Neutral citation
- [2018] EWHC 84 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 24th January 2018
- Judge
- Mrs Justice Lang DBE
- Case number
- CO/1259/2017 & CO/4638/2017
What KP JR Management decided
The dispute concerned Kew Marine, a mooring and pontoon site in the River Thames next to Kew Bridge. Richmond Council had granted a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development for a mixed use involving residential and private leisure boats.
The court held that the Council had been entitled to reach the conclusions it did. In particular:
- the mooring and pontoon area could properly be treated as the relevant planning unit
- there was ample evidence of continuous residential use by at least two vessels for more than ten years before the CLEUD application
- the increase in the number of vessels used residentially did not, on the Council’s lawful planning judgment, amount to a material change of use
- the certificate of lawfulness therefore stood, and the related challenge to the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action also failed
The case does not mean that every marina, mooring or group of boats must be treated as a single planning unit. The court was reviewing whether Richmond had made a lawful planning judgment on the facts before it.
A note on enforcement time limits: the judgment applied section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as it stood in 2018. The relevant residential mooring use fell within the ten-year period for other breaches of planning control. From 25th April 2024, section 115 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 extended the former four-year time limits for operational development and changes of use to a single dwellinghouse in England to ten years, subject to transitional provisions. That reform did not reduce the ten-year period relevant to the type of change of use considered in this case.
Why the planning unit mattered
The choice of planning unit can change the whole analysis. If each boat or part of a site is treated separately, the history and use of each part may have to be considered on its own. If the wider mooring is one planning unit, the question becomes the character of the use of that unit as a whole.
In KP JR Management, the High Court accepted that the Council was entitled to treat the mooring and pontoon area as the planning unit. That was a planning judgment based on the circumstances of this site, not a universal rule about boats.
More residential boats did not automatically mean a new use
An existing use can become more intensive without necessarily becoming a materially different use in planning terms. The question is whether the character of the use has changed enough to amount to a material change of use.
Richmond considered both what was happening at the site and the effects beyond it, including matters such as visual impact, privacy, smoke, sewage and navigation. The court held that the Council was entitled to conclude that the increase in residential vessels was an intensification of the established mixed use rather than a material change that created a new breach of planning control. Judicial review was concerned with whether that planning judgment was lawfully reached, not with the court substituting its own view on the planning merits.
Read the full KP JR Management judgment
The full judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below. If you are not signed in with Gold access, the button will take you to the appropriate membership option.
Related Planning Geek guidance
If you are dealing with an established use, start with our guide to a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development. If a certificate application is refused, see our separate guide to a lawful development certificate appeal. The wider planning enforcement section explains what happens where a council believes there has been a breach of planning control.
KP JR Management Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026