Warwick District Council’s enforcement notice over a caravan on agricultural land has been quashed after an Inspector found the breach alleged by the council had not actually occurred.
The Warwick caravan enforcement appeal concerned land south-west of Providence Lodge, Bakers Lane, Knowle. The notice alleged a mixed use of the land for agriculture and for the stationing of a caravan for residential or domestic storage purposes.
The caravan was there, but the alleged use was not
Warwick issued the notice on 6th August 2025. It required the caravan use unrelated to agriculture to cease, the caravan and domestic paraphernalia to be removed, and the land to be restored.
The landowner’s position was straightforward. She accepted that the caravan had been stationed on the land, but said it had never been lived in and had not been used for domestic storage. It had been placed there because of personal circumstances and had no power or water supply.
Inspector Mark Caine visited the site on 11th August 2026. He found the caravan standing in the middle of overgrown grassland. It appeared unoccupied, with no mains services and no domestic paraphernalia around it.
The council had no evidence showing that anybody had actually lived in the caravan or used it for domestic storage.
A possible future use was not enough
The council pointed to statements indicating that the appellant wanted to live in the caravan and store possessions there. But the Inspector drew a clear distinction between an intention and a breach that had already taken place.
An enforcement notice has to attack the breach which has occurred. It is not a mechanism for enforcing against a feared future use which has not yet happened.
There was another important drafting problem. The notice did not allege that simply storing or stationing the caravan on the land was itself the breach. It specifically alleged residential or domestic storage use. On the evidence before the Inspector, neither had happened.
Why the Warwick caravan enforcement notice was quashed
The appeal therefore succeeded on ground (b), meaning the matters alleged in the notice had not occurred.
The Inspector was not satisfied that the notice could be corrected to attack some different breach without causing injustice. The enforcement notice was quashed and the remaining appeal grounds did not need to be determined.
The decision, dated 21st September 2026, is a fairly stark example of why the wording of an enforcement notice must match the facts on the ground. A council can act against an actual breach of planning control, but it cannot draft the notice around what it thinks might happen later.
Planning Geek’s enforcement section contains further guidance on notices and appeals.
Appeal reference: APP/T3725/C/25/3372335. Planning Inspectorate case page.
0 Comments