COVID-19 in the UK has been characterised by periods of exponential growth and decline, as different non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are brought into play. During the early uncontrolled phase of the outbreak (March 2020) there was a period of prolonged exponential growth with epidemiological observations such as hospitalisation doubling every 3-4 days. The enforcement of strict lockdown measures led to a noticeable decline in all epidemic quantities that slowed during the summer as control measures were relaxed. From August 2020, infections, hospitalisations and deaths began rising once more and various NPIs were applied locally throughout the UK in response. Controlling any rise in infection is a compromise between public health and societal costs, with more stringent NPIs reducing cases but damaging the economy and restricting freedoms. Typically, NPI imposition is made in response to the epidemiological state, are of indefinite length and are often imposed at short notice, greatly increasing the negative impact. An alternative approach is to consider planned, limited duration periods of strict NPIs aiming to purposefully reduce prevalence before such emergency NPIs are required. These "precautionary breaks" may offer a means of keeping control of the epidemic, while their fixed duration and the forewarning may limit their societal impact. Here, using simple analysis and age-structured models matched to the UK SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, we investigate the action of precautionary breaks. In particular we consider their impact on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as the total number of predicted hospitalisations and deaths caused by COVID-19 disease. We find that precautionary breaks provide the biggest gains when the growth rate is low, but offer a much needed brake on increasing infection when the growth rate is higher, potentially allowing other measures to regain control.