'Illegal' Hair Salon Hidden in Million-Dollar Home's Back Garden Forced 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 criticism from nearby residents.

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

Earlier this year, D Holder and M Fallan submitted an application for retroactive approval to utilize the outbuilding as a hair salon, aiming to keep their business running 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. Normally, because the structure predates current regulations by more than ten years, it would typically be exempt from such actions.

However, the council's development control committee has approved taking enforcement action against the business to remove all commercial equipment from the outbuilding, ensuring it will be utilized solely for residential purposes.

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

Should the updated proposals get approved, the hairstylists will serve clientele four days weekly rather than five, with each stylist handling just five guests per day. Additionally, this change would lead to reducing the workforce from two part-time employees down to one.

Residents formerly criticized their neighbors for running unauthorized businesses in their vicinity, labeling it as a 'nightmarish' situation while asserting that it led to significant parking disruptions on their peaceful residential road.

A neighbor informed MailOnline: "The primary problem is parking, which has been an ongoing concern." Christmas To park on our driveway, we need to enter their driveway, then reverse back around.

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

The structure has been recently renovated and functions as a salon where two staff members attend to as many as seven customers daily, working from Tuesday through Saturday during hours spanning 9 am to 6 pm.

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

The Southend-on-Sea City Council had earlier been presented with nine letters expressing objections, which raised issues such as parking problems, increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, disturbances, odor complaints, and reduced privacy.

A nearby 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."

Councillor Paul Collins from Eastwood Park Ward requested that the application be reviewed by the development control committee.

The grounds for rejecting the backdated approval included concerns that the proposed development would introduce 'kinds and degrees of non-residential use that do not align properly with and could be considerably detrimental' to the residential zone. Additionally, the frequent movement of individuals was seen as causing 'activities, noise, and disruptions unsuitable for a living environment.'

The appeal submission states: "Apellan argues that the suggested usage would not adversely affect the character of the region or disturb the comfort of nearby residents."

Paul Collins, the Liberal Democrat councillor representing Eastwood Park Ward, stated that he felt the changes did not go far enough.

He stated: "I am going to step forward and voice concerns for the community members. I shall inquire about their stance; however, right now, it seems clear that they are not satisfied with this plan and wish to express their opinions. I will back them up in doing so. Even though the request has been slightly amended, they continue to believe that it remains unsuitably located."

I believe they won’t support this, and I’ll ensure the committee understands my stance. The location remains in a rear garden within a residential area. This setting isn’t ideal according to them, which is why I plan to inform the committee that the residents are opposed and do not want it to go ahead.