In a dramatic conclusion to a prolonged planning dispute, a doctor has been instructed to dismantle an enormous ‘mega-garage’ he erected adjacent to his small riverside home. The order comes after years of contentious debate revealed significant inconsistencies in his justification for the construction.

Dr. Martin Rooke, without securing proper planning permission, built the expansive L-shaped garage next to Meadow Cottage, located near Warwick. He claimed the structure was vital for storing his collection of classic cars. However, this rationale has not held up under scrutiny.

On March 30, 2026, a government planning inspector rejected Dr. Rooke’s appeal, mandating that the oversized building be dismantled within a nine-month timeframe. This decision marks the end of a long-standing battle that began with the issuance of an enforcement notice on August 14, 2018.

The council’s previous attempts to address the matter in October and November 2016 were unsuccessful due to technical issues that led to the withdrawal of those actions. These setbacks delayed the enforcement process, allowing the case to linger for years.

A site inspection conducted on February 5, 2026, played a crucial role in the final decision rendered a few weeks later. Central to the conflict is the disproportionate scale of the garage compared to the modest two-bedroom Meadow Cottage, which occupies about 70 square meters. In stark contrast, the massive outbuilding stretches over approximately 367 square meters, dwarfing the cottage by more than five times.

At the heart of the row is the sheer scale of the development. Meadow Cottage is a modest two-bedroom home with a footprint of just around 70 square metres, yet the outbuilding beside it sprawls across approximately 367 square metres – making it more than five times larger than the house itself. 

The inspector found the structure had become ‘by far the dominant building on the land’.

Dr Rooke argued the building was intended for a gym, workshop and garaging for a collection of classic cars, with its design of ten large garage-style openings suggesting space for up to ten vehicles. 

But the reality on site told a very different story, as the ruling stated: ‘Only one car is currently garaged in the building and no evidence whatsoever of a classic car collection has been provided.’

Dr Martin Rooke constructed the vast L-shaped structure without planning permission, insisting it was needed to house a collection of classic cars

Dr Rooke argued the building was intended for a gym, workshop and garaging for a collection of classic cars, with its design of ten large garage-style openings suggesting space for up to ten vehicles

Dr Rooke argued the building fell under permitted development rules, claiming it was incidental to the enjoyment of the home

The inspector also noted the ‘apparent lack of any such use in all the time the building… has been available’.

The site, which lies in the Green Belt, had been the subject of complaints, pointing to local concern about the scale and nature of the development. 

While the documents do not spell out each objection in detail, the inspector made clear there were ‘public interest considerations’ in taking enforcement action, particularly given the size of the structure and its setting.

The case has a long and tangled history stretching back years. 

Early enquiries between 2008 and 2013 suggested far smaller outbuildings were being considered, including garages, a pool and storage, and in May 2011 Dr Rooke had been warned that continuing works without permission would be at risk of enforcement action.

Despite this, the massive structure was erected, leading to repeated enforcement attempts before the 2018 notice that ultimately led to this appeal.

Dr Rooke attempted to argue the building fell under permitted development rules, claiming it was incidental to the enjoyment of the home, but this was firmly rejected.

The site, which lies in the Green Belt, had been the subject of complaints, pointing to local concern about the scale and nature of the development

The inspector concluded that the scale of the building, along with its extensive storage and office space, went far beyond what could reasonably be expected for a small cottage. 

The ruling stated: ‘It has not been demonstrated that the building… was required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of Meadow Cottage.’

With the appeal dismissed, the enforcement notice now stands in full, meaning the sprawling outbuilding must be demolished and all resulting waste removed from the land within nine months. 

Dr Rooke offered no comment when approached by the Daily Mail.

Warwick District Council has been approached for comment.