A West Devon enforcement notice seeking the removal of two residential caravans and associated hardstanding has been quashed after a Planning Inspector found a fundamental mismatch between the alleged breach and the land identified on the council’s plan. The decision, issued on 7th October 2026, concerns Mount Pleasant near Beaworthy in Devon.
I would read the West Devon enforcement notice as a warning about defining the alleged breach precisely. West Devon Borough Council alleged that a much wider agricultural holding had changed to residential use. However, the red-line plan also enclosed fields, a farm track, a barn, a touring caravan area and other land where different activities appeared to be taking place. Inspector Chris Preston concluded that the notice did not identify the breach with sufficient clarity.
Crucially, the West Devon enforcement notice was quashed because of its validity, not because the residential caravans had planning permission. I would keep that distinction firmly in mind: the Inspector did not determine the planning merits of the caravans, and the council remains free to consider a correctly framed fresh notice. This has practical consequences for owners and councils dealing with complex mixed-use land.
Why the West Devon enforcement notice failed
The council issued the West Devon enforcement notice on 8th May 2025. It alleged an unauthorised material change of use from agriculture to residential use through the siting of two caravans, together with operational development consisting of a gravelled hardstanding beneath and around one of them. The notice required the residential use to cease, both caravans and their domestic paraphernalia to be removed, and the hardstanding to be taken up with the land restored to agricultural pasture.
The notice provided for a compliance period of up to 12 months after it took effect. But the way the land was identified proved fatal before the Inspector needed to decide whether those steps, or the residential use itself, were acceptable in planning terms.
The red line did not simply surround the paddock occupied by the caravans. It covered a much larger area, including the driveway to the farmhouse and what appeared to be domesticated land beside it, a duck pond, the barn and farmyard, and several other fields. The farmhouse itself was excluded from the boundary. The Inspector identified existing touring caravan pitches at the side of the barn and understood that a touring caravan use had planning permission.
Other parts of the holding appeared to remain in pasture or haylage production, while aerial photographs suggested that some paddocks had been used for storage. The precise relationship between those activities was not established in the evidence. That mattered because the allegation was not that residential caravans occupied one part of a holding which had other uses. It was that all the land edged red had materially changed from agriculture to residential use.
In the West Devon enforcement notice decision, the Inspector described the allegation as “manifestly inaccurate”. He warned that councils could not fairly extend the red-line area merely to make enforcement easier if the alleged use was not occurring throughout it. The decision is therefore about a drafting problem with direct legal consequences, rather than a minor mapping error.
Why the Inspector could not repair the notice
Under section 176(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Inspectors have powers to correct defects in an enforcement notice, subject to the requirement that no injustice is caused. Not every inaccurate plan or imprecise allegation will necessarily invalidate a notice. In this case, however, repairing one part of the case risked creating a different one.
The Inspector considered whether the broad red-line boundary could remain and the allegation be rewritten to describe a mixed use of the land. That approach would have required reliable evidence of the various uses taking place across the entire holding. He lacked sufficient information about the barn and storage areas, and a mixed-use allegation might also need to include the farmhouse or affect other interests not identified in the original notice.
A second option was to narrow the plan to the particular paddock containing the two caravans. But that solution raised a different uncertainty: were the residential caravans independent uses, or part of the wider range of activities on the holding? The Inspector could not confidently resolve the point without altering the case which the parties had come to answer.
The decision also records that the appellant was unrepresented. The Inspector was particularly conscious of the potential unfairness of substantially rewriting the allegation or plan when the person appealing might not appreciate the legal implications. He ultimately concluded that either attempted correction could cause injustice.
The resulting finding was specific. The enforcement notice failed to state with sufficient clarity the breach of planning control across the land to which it applied. The Inspector declared it invalid and quashed it. There was no replacement allegation inserted by the Inspector and no partial permission granted instead.
Ground (a) did not produce planning permission
The appellant had appealed under section 174(2)(a) of the 1990 Act, effectively arguing that planning permission should be granted for the development alleged in the notice. A ground (a) enforcement appeal ordinarily involves a deemed planning application under section 177(5), allowing the Inspector to consider the planning merits.
Here that assessment never happened. Once the notice was found invalid, there was no properly defined development for the Inspector to determine under the ground (a) appeal. The accompanying deemed application was therefore not considered. Treating the successful quashing of the notice as retrospective planning permission for the caravans would misreport the decision.
Nor did the absence of a separate ground (b) appeal prevent the Inspector from identifying a basic defect in the notice. Ground (b) normally concerns whether the matters alleged occurred as a question of fact. The Inspector instead addressed whether the notice as drafted could fairly be understood and, if necessary, corrected in the appeal before him.
The council may consider serving another enforcement notice. If it does, it would need to decide what development and what land are actually alleged to be in breach and ensure that any plan and required steps reflect that position. This appeal does not pre-judge the merits of a future notice or give blanket protection to residential caravan use on the site.
The practical lesson for mixed-use land
Large rural holdings can combine agricultural fields, domestic curtilage, commercial storage, holiday accommodation, tracks, buildings and uses developed at different times. Drawing one line around the entire title or ownership may be convenient, but title boundaries do not automatically establish the planning unit, the extent of a material change of use or the geographical reach of an alleged breach.
The West Devon decision highlights the need to reconcile the wording of a notice with the evidence and the land edged on its plan. A notice directed at one use should not unintentionally allege that lawful or potentially distinct activities across the same holding have all become that use. Conversely, an authority alleging an unauthorised mixed use must investigate and describe that mixed use with enough precision to support the allegation.
The West Devon enforcement notice also exposes a balancing issue for councils. A tightly drawn boundary may leave open the possibility of the activity being moved elsewhere on a holding, requiring further investigation. The Inspector expressly recognised that concern. However, I would not treat a wider precautionary boundary as a substitute for evidence that the alleged use actually exists across the whole area.
For landowners, a defect is not automatically a winning appeal point. Inspectors can correct some notices where doing so is fair. Evidence about the particular land, the uses present on the relevant date, the physical layout and the relationship between activities may therefore matter more than an argument based on an imprecise line alone.
The wider significance is procedural fairness. An enforcement notice must tell the recipient what the authority says happened, where it happened and what must be remedied. If a proposed correction changes those fundamentals, the Inspector must consider whether the parties would be disadvantaged by deciding a different case from the one originally served.
What owners and councils should check next
Anyone receiving an enforcement notice should first identify the date on which it takes effect. An enforcement appeal must be made before that date, and the opportunity cannot simply be recovered later because a drafting defect comes to light. The available grounds of appeal, and their consequences, also need to be considered rather than assuming that one objection to the plan deals with all the issues.
Planning Geek explains the requirements for a notice, the seven usual grounds and the appeal deadline in its guide to enforcement notices and appeals. Its broader planning enforcement guide covers the steps before and after a formal notice.
In practice, a careful review should compare the alleged breach with the plan, the evidence of actual activities in each area, any existing permissions and the steps demanded. It should also distinguish a residential use of caravans from a lawful touring caravan site or unrelated agricultural and storage uses. Those categories cannot safely be collapsed merely because they share an access or ownership.
The source is Inspector Chris Preston’s decision dated 7th October 2026, reference APP/Q1153/C/25/3365665, concerning Mount Pleasant, Beaworthy. The official reference can also be checked through the official Planning Inspectorate decision. The case is an Inspector’s enforcement appeal determination, not a High Court judgment or a general declaration that the caravans were lawful.
The immediate result is clear: West Devon Borough Council’s particular notice was quashed. Whether any further action is justified will depend on a properly framed allegation and the evidence of the land’s actual uses.
0 Comments