A Bamby Moor enforcement appeal has been dismissed after an inspector upheld a notice requiring an unauthorised residential use of agricultural land to cease and a range of associated structures to be removed. The 19 October 2026 decision concerns land at Eastfield, Feoffee Common Lane, in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Inspector Chris Baxter rejected challenges that the council’s requirements were excessive or that more time was needed. Crucially, the appeal did not ask the inspector to grant retrospective planning permission for the residential use, so arguments that the caravan and track caused no planning harm could not decide the case.
The distinction between the grounds of appeal matters for owners facing notices covering several items. The Bamby Moor enforcement case shows why the selected appeal grounds frame what an inspector can decide. A claim that a structure is acceptable in policy terms is different from a legal argument that its removal goes beyond what is necessary to remedy the alleged breach.
What the Bamby Moor enforcement notice alleged
East Riding of Yorkshire Council issued the notice on 18 December 2024. It described a material change of use from agriculture to a mixed use involving agriculture, human habitation and associated storage, together with a static caravan.
The notice also covered operational development connected with that use, including services, decking, railings, a storage shed, gazebo, stone track, hardstanding and paving. It identified a structure called Lodge 1 and associated works. The land also contained Lodge 2, which was linked to an earlier enforcement notice dated August 2010 that the inspector recorded as remaining in force.
That history is important. The 2024 notice did not simply allege that a single caravan had been parked on farmland. It described a much wider residential use and a collection of facilities and works said to enable that use.
The notice required the residential use to stop. It also specified removal of Lodge 1, the static caravan, relevant decking, sheds, surfaces and services, and domestic items. The requirements included associated works around the area of Lodge 2, without making the earlier 2010 notice disappear.
Why ground (f) could not save the caravan
The appellant relied on grounds (f) and (g) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ground (f) asks whether the notice goes further than necessary to remedy the breach of planning control, or the injury to amenity that it has caused.
In the Bamby Moor enforcement decision, the inspector found that the council’s stated objective was to remedy the breach itself. That meant ending the unauthorised residential use and removing the items and structures that formed part of it, rather than merely improving the appearance of the land.
The appellant argued that the caravan, road and pond did not cause planning harm and were consistent with policy. However, the inspector said questions about planning acceptability belonged to ground (a), which had not been pursued. He also noted that the pond was not part of the notice.
Because the caravan and road were included within the alleged breach, leaving them in place would not achieve the stated objective of the notice. On that basis, the inspector held that full removal was not excessive and ground (f) failed.
This is a narrower finding than a declaration that a caravan or access track must always be unacceptable on agricultural land. It concerns the purpose and terms of this particular enforcement notice.
A longer compliance period was refused
Ground (g) concerns the time allowed for compliance. The appellant sought an extension to twelve months, referring to the scale of the works and arguing that earthmoving would be better carried out at particular times of year.
The inspector considered that case inadequately evidenced. The appeal submissions did not clearly explain why the earthmoving had to occur in defined seasons or specify those periods. Most requirements involved removing structures, domestic items and services, and bringing residential occupation to an end.
The Bamby Moor enforcement decision records a four-month period as reasonable and dismisses ground (g). Practitioners should nevertheless read the original notice carefully. The introductory description specifies four months, whereas one sentence in paragraph 5 of the decision compares the requested twelve months with ‘four weeks’. That appears inconsistent, and the passage should not be taken to change the notice’s stated period.
There is a broader lesson here: a request for more time needs a documented programme, realistic contractor evidence and a clear explanation of why work cannot reasonably be completed within the required period. A general reference to weather or the amount of work may not be enough.
Why grounds of appeal must not be confused
An enforcement appeal is not one interchangeable challenge. Ground (a) asks the inspector to consider granting planning permission for the relevant development. Ground (f) tests whether the steps are excessive. Ground (g) tests whether the compliance period is reasonable. Different evidence is needed for each, and success on one does not necessarily establish the others.
For the Bamby Moor enforcement appellant, there was no ground (a) case before the inspector. That is why assertions about the harmlessness or policy compliance of some works did not provide a route to permission. Once the notice was treated as seeking to remedy the breach itself, keeping part of the residential arrangement was not a sufficient solution.
Owners sometimes assume that offering a reduced site layout or a promise to make changes should be enough for ground (f). It may be relevant where a notice seeks to remedy an identified injury to amenity and less work would achieve that. But where the notice is directed at ending an unlawful use and removing the development comprising it, a partial arrangement may leave the breach substantially untouched.
What happens next
The inspector dismissed both grounds and upheld the notice. The decision does not itself grant a new planning consent and does not make the land lawful for human habitation. The separate earlier notice relating to Lodge 2 remains a matter requiring attention in its own right.
The Bamby Moor enforcement decision illustrates why it is necessary to obtain all extant notices, site plans and planning-history documents before advising on a complex rural enforcement case. Two notices on the same land may impose different obligations. A later notice does not silently supersede an earlier one unless its terms or a formal legal action establish that result.
See Planning Geek’s enforcement appeal grounds guide and enforcement notice guide for the statutory distinctions and deadlines.
Decision: Planning Inspectorate appeal APP/E2001/C/25/3358986, dated 19 October 2026. The decision is also available via AppealBase. This is an England inspector appeal, not a court judgment.
0 Comments