# The Old Post House, Mundesley Road, Trimingham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Aston
- **Authority:** North Norfolk (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008881
- **Application reference:** PF/25/2776
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective change of use of domestic garage to Class E(b) bar ("The Cliffhanger") with outdoor seating for 35
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(1)(c), S5(2), F9, P3, TR4
- **Development plan policies:** North Norfolk Local Plan SS1, SS2, ENV6, CC5, CC8, CC9, HC7
- **Main issues:** location, noise, parking and access, coastal change, amenity space
- **Tags:** s5-1-b-necessity, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, coastal-change, retrospective, rural-tourism, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A retrospective clifftop bar in a converted garage at Trimingham was dismissed. It qualified under S5(1)(b) (tourism) and S5(1)(c) (reuse of a redundant building). It still failed the "substantially outweighed" test. The site is in a Coastal Change Management Area with no vulnerability assessment, and F9 says such development "should not take place". Noise was under-assessed, and parking relied on third-party clifftop land.

## Issues and findings
- **Location: acceptable.** The garage was "not big enough to house a modern-day vehicle" and "could be reasonably regarded as redundant" (DL ¶5). "The proposal is supported in terms of being tourist development and the re-use of a building S5 (1. b and c) and by Policies E2 and E4" (DL ¶22).
- **Noise, P3: FAIL.** The acoustic report modelled 20 customers at normal voice. "the proposal must be determined as applied for and its indicated overall capacity" (DL ¶10).
- **Parking and access, TR4: FAIL.** "It is ultimately unknown to me ... who owns or has rights to use, pass and re-pass on this land" (DL ¶16).
- **Coastal change, F9: FAIL.** "it has not been demonstrated through up to date evidence that such development in a CCMA would be safe over its planned lifetime ... This latter policy states in such circumstances such development should not take place" (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
S5(1)/S5(2) (DL ¶21). Economic benefit got modest weight, with community support noted (DL ¶22). "These are the prevailing considerations and in this case the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶24).

## What made the difference
Evidence gaps. There was no CEVA, the noise assessment was not at capacity, and parking rights were not secured. F9 operated as a refusal-type policy under S5(2) even though the use itself fell within two S5(1) categories.

## Transferable points
- Tourism and reuse can both qualify under S5(1)(b)/(c) for small rural leisure uses without a separate "necessity" discussion where reuse is established (DL ¶22).
- F9 (Coastal Change Management Areas) is a "should not take place" policy. Without a coastal vulnerability assessment it defeats an otherwise qualifying scheme (DL ¶23-24).
- Noise must be assessed at the capacity applied for, not typical trade (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(b): pass.** supported as tourist development (with S5(1)(c) reuse, E2, E4); economic benefit modest (DL 22)
- **S5(1)(c): pass.** redundant small garage reused without significant alteration (DL 5, 22)
- **F9: fail.** in Coastal Change Management Area (Epoch 2/3 border); no Coastal Erosion Vulnerability Assessment; F9 says such development should not take place (DL 17-18, 23)
- **P3: fail.** acoustic report assumed 20 normal-voice customers, not 45 capacity with raised voices and music to 22:30 next to neighbouring garden (DL 9-12, 23)
- **TR4: fail.** reliance on informal parking on third-party clifftop land with no rights or mechanism (DL 13-16, 23)
- **S5(2): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; F9 is a should-not-take-place policy (DL 21, 24)

## Key facts
- Bar trading since June 2025; open midday-22:30 daily (DL 2, 8)
- Letter dates the Framework publication as 26 August 2026 - slip (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008881
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dc49c4a6-6425-4c20-ac85-65be5debdd58

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008881.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.