A homeowner, who built a hair salon in the garden of their £650,000 property, have been ordered by the council to close amid backlash from locals.
In 2011, owners of secret hairdressers erected a large outbuilding, overlooking a swimming pool in Eastwood, Southend, in Essex, but had not informed the council.
Earlier this year, applicants, D Holder and M Fallan, applied for retrospective permission to use the outbuilding as hair salon, hoping to continue their business operating five days a week.
Their retrospective planning permission to use the business has since been denied by Southend Council, however due to the building being built over a decade ago, it would usually be immune to enforcement action.
But the council’s development control committee have agreed to slap the business with an enforcement action to pull all business equipment from the outbuilding so it is used for only residential purposes.
The owner has since launched an appeal whilst lodging a new retrospective application with fewer operating hours.
If the new plans are given the green light, the hairdressers would welcome customers four days a week instead of five, as well as servicing only only five clients a day. It would also see a reduction in staff from two part time employees to one.
Locals previously blasted their neighbours for their unapproved business in their backyard, branding it a ‘nightmare’ whilst claiming it caused parking chaos on their quiet suburban street.
Applicants D Holder and M Fallan, applied for retrospective permission to use the outbuilding of 19 Blatches Chase (pictured) as hair salon
The property is in a quiet, residential area where the Neighbourhood Watch operates. The image shows an aerial view of the back garden and outbuildings
One neighbour told MailOnline: ‘Parking is the main issue and has been ongoing since Christmas. To park on our driveway we have to drive onto their driveway and reverse back round.
‘It must be a nightmare for their immediate neighbours who have a shared drive with them and will have people using the side path every day.’
The building was recently refurbished and used as a salon where two employees see up to seven clients a day operating between Tuesday and Saturday from 9am to 6pm.
Clients access the salon through the driveway, which is shared with their next-door neighbours, and side access.
Southend-on-Sea City Council previously received nine letters of objection with concerns including parking and traffic stress, noise, disturbance, odour and loss of privacy.
Another neighbour, who asked not to be named, said: ‘This is the first I’m hearing of the planning permission but I don’t agree with it.’
Councillor Paul Collins for Eastwood Park Ward, called in the application to be considered by the development control committee.
The above image shows the outbuilding at the end of the property
The four-bed, detached house last sold in 2007 for £380,000. Pictured is the outbuilding space which is now used as a salon
The reasons for the refusal of the retrospective planning were cited as the development introducing ‘types and levels of non-domestic activity which are materially out of keeping with and significantly harmful’ to the residential area as well as the the frequency of people coming and going sparking ‘activity, noise and disturbance which are incompatible with a residential setting.’
The appeal report reads: ‘The Apellan targues that the proposed use would not have a negative impact on the character of the area or on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.’
Paul Collins, Lib Dem councillor for Eastwood Park Ward, said he didn’t think revisions went far enough.
He said: ‘I will go and speak on behalf of residents. I’ll ask them what their view is but I certainly feel at the moment that they’re not content with this proposal and they will want to represent their views. I will support them in that. Despite the slight reduction in the application they still feel it’s not in an appropriate position.’
‘I think they will not be supportive of this and I’ll make sure the committee knows that. It’s still in the middle of a back garden amongst residential properties. It’s not ideally suited and that’s their view so I shall tell the committee the residents are not happy and don’t wish it to proceed.’
