'Luxury Home's Illegal Backyard Salon Ordered to Shut Down'

A homeowner who constructed a hair salon in the garden of their £650,000 property has been instructed by the council to shut down due to opposition from nearby residents.

In 2011, proprietors of clandestine hairdressing businesses constructed a sizable structure with a view of a swimming pool in Eastwood, Southend, within the county of Essex, without notifying the local authorities.

Earlier this year, D. Holder and M. Fallan submitted an application seeking retroactive approval to convert the outbuilding into a hair salon, aiming to sustain their business operation of running it five days a week.

They were granted retrospective planning permission for using the property as a business, but this was later overturned by Southend Council. Typically, because the structure predates current regulations by more than ten years, it would generally be exempt from such enforcement actions.

However, the council's development control committee has approved taking enforcement action against the business, requiring them to remove all commercial equipment from the outbuilding so that it can be exclusively used for residential purposes.

The owner has subsequently filed an appeal and submitted a new retrospective application for reduced operational hours.

Should the updated plans be approved, the barbershop will serve clientele four days a week rather than five, with each barber handling just five guests daily. Additionally, staffing levels would decrease from two part-time workers to one.

Residents formerly criticized their neighbors for running an unauthorized business in their neighborhood, labeling it a "nightmare" and blaming it for causing significant parking issues on their peaceful residential street.

A neighbor informed MailOnline, "The primary problem revolves around parking, which has been an ongoing concern for some time now." Christmas To park on our driveway, we need to enter their driveway, then reverse around to get into position.

'This situation must be quite a nightmare for their close neighbors who share a driveway with them and will consequently see increased traffic through the side path daily.'

Recently renovated, the structure now serves as a salon where two staff members attend to up to seven customers daily, with operations running from Tuesday through Saturday between 9 AM and 6 PM.

Customers enter the salon via the driveway, which they share with their adjacent neighbors, as well as through a side entrance.

The Southend-on-Sea City Council had earlier been presented with nine letters expressing objections, which included worries about issues such as parking availability, increased traffic congestion, higher levels of noise and disruption, unpleasant smells, and reduced personal space.

A neighboring resident, who chose to remain anonymous, stated: "I just heard about the approved planning permit for the first time, and I do not support it."

Council member Paul Collins of Eastwood Park Ward requested that the application be reviewed by the development control committee.

The grounds for rejecting the retrospective plan included the introduction of types and intensities of non-residential activities that were substantially inconsistent with and detrimental to the residential zone. Additionally, concerns arose over the frequent movement of individuals causing increased activity, noise, and disruption not suitable for a living environment.

The appeal submission states: "Apellan argues that the suggested usage would not adversely affect the character of the region or diminish the enjoyment for neighboring residents."

Paul Collins, the Liberal Democrat councillor representing Eastwood Park Ward, stated that he felt the changes were not extensive enough.

He stated: "I am going to step forward and voice the concerns of the community members. While I plan to inquire about their opinions, my current understanding is that they are dissatisfied with the proposed idea and wish to express their stance clearly. I intend to back them up in doing so. Even though the submission has been slightly amended, they remain convinced that it is not situated appropriately."

I believe they won’t support this, and I’ll ensure the committee is aware. The location remains in a rear garden within a residential area. It’s far from ideal according to them, which means I must inform the committee that the residents are opposed and do not want it to go ahead.