AN independent planning inspector has concluded that the former Nude Dunes restaurant was being used as a de-facto home – at least for a time – dismissing claims that overnight stays were for security reasons and backing enforcement action.
The finding sits at the heart of two planning enforcement appeals which were formally rejected by the Environment Minister Steve Luce yesterday.
The decision means enforcement notices against the La Pulente site will remain in force, with owner Nadia Miller given two months to comply.
The most contentious issue was whether the shuttered coastal restaurant had crossed the line into unauthorised residential use, but planning inspector Sue Bell concluded the evidence pointed clearly in that direction.
In her report, she explained that a person accompanied by three children was seen leaving the building carrying a laundry basket during a planning officer’s visit in June.
Subsequent inspections revealed beds, domestic furniture, and personal belongings inside the premises.
Ms Miller accepted that there were occasional overnight stays but argued that they were for security reasons.
But the planning inspector said: “Even were I to accept that an overnight stay for security reasons was necessary, the nature and character of a stay by a family group is not the same as that arising from having a professional security guard on site.
“Overnight stays by family groups are more characteristic of a residential setting.”
Ms Miller also claimed that beds had been placed inside to “dress” the building for potential buyers to provide an illustration of how it might look if permission were granted to convert it to holiday accommodation.
The planning inspector did not accept this, noting: “The authorised use of the building is a café/restaurant and so there can be little benefit in dressing it in a manner more typical of residential/ domestic use.”
The internal layout that the inspector observed was described as resembling an open-plan living space rather than a food venue – with sofas, a long dining table, a computer workstation, and personal effects such as birthday cards.
The inspector said residential use does not require someone to live there every night, or for it to be their only home, before concluding that the building was being used as a self-contained residential unit without permission.
On that basis, the appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld.
A second appeal, relating to the installation of a tall wooden fence and a modular storage pod at the site, was also rejected.
While the owner argued that both were temporary and necessary for security and maintenance, the inspector said neither qualified as permitted development – particularly given the site’s location within the Coastal National Park, where planning controls are at their strictest.
The planning inspector acknowledged that the property had been the “subject of hostile publicity” with “instances of unauthorised access and vandalism”, but explained that the installation of a fence would require planning permission.
The Environment Minister accepted the inspector’s recommendations in full, ruling that there were no grounds to depart from her findings.
As a result, both enforcement notices stand, with compliance required by 18 February 2026.
