Hair salon built in back garden ordered to CLOSE after neighbours call it a 'nightmare'

A makeshift beauty parlor constructed in the backyard of a residence has been instructed to shut down by local authorities.

The proprietors of hidden barbershops erected the sizable shed, which overlooks a swimming pool, way back in 2011 without informing the local authorities.

Questions were raised about whether the structure remained upright due to a planning loophole, which exempts buildings erected over ten years prior from adhering to specific planning rules.

Angry residents voiced their frustration over the traffic congestion triggered by the establishment and the ensuing disorder with parking in their area of Southend, Essex.

However, city officials consented to take out the commercial gear from the structure and permit its usage solely for living quarters.

However, the proprietor is also contesting the rejection and has lodged an appeal for retrospective planning permission to run the business with shortened hours.

Upon approval, the salon would operate four days a week rather than five, accommodate five customers per day instead of seven, and employ one part-time worker as opposed to two.

Earlier this year, residents living nearby raised objections to the plans, stating that ever since the business commenced operations, the resulting traffic situation had become a 'nightmare.'

A neighbor informed MailOnline, "The primary problem revolves around parking, and this issue has persisted for some time now." Christmas To park on our driveway, we need to enter via their driveway and then reverse back around.

'It must be quite a nightmare for their close neighbors who share a driveway with them and will have individuals using the side path daily.'

The structure has undergone renovation and now functions as a salon where two staff members attend to as many as seven customers daily, with operations running from Tuesday through Saturday between 9 AM and 6 PM.

Clients access the salon through the driveway, which is shared with their next-door neighbours, and side access.

The four-bed, detached home is in a quiet, residential area where properties sell for an average of £650,000.

D HOLDER AND M FALLAN, the applicants, sought retroactive approval to utilize the outbuilding as a hair salon.

The Southend-on-Sea City Council was presented with nine letters expressing objections due to various issues such as parking problems, increased traffic, noise disturbances, nuisance smells, and reduced privacy.

A nearby resident, who chose to remain anonymous, commented: "I'm just learning about this planning approval, and I do not support it."

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

He stated: "This is quite a controversial matter. The neighbors are displeased with it. They have concerns regarding parking congestion on the street and the operating hours."

'I have received input from various parties regarding this matter. I am hopeful that the committee will handle matters equitably for the residents. The necessity of having this in a backyard must be convincingly demonstrated by the applicant since it would be situated in a backyard encircled by residential areas.'

Upon approval, the salon would have to adhere to several conditions, such as being operational from 9 AM to 6 PM, Tuesdays through Saturdays.

Other stipulations encompass a maximum of two staff members present simultaneously, not exceeding three clients being attended to or awaiting service at any given time, with a daily limit of seven client appointment slots.

The report suggested that the control committee approve the planning application with certain stipulations.

The report stated: 'The suggested development would have a permissible effect on the character and look of the location, the streetscape, and the nearby region.'

'The proposal would similarly cause a tolerable effect on the surroundings of neighboring residents, provided certain conditions are met.'

'The suggested project will not lead to considerable negative effects on traffic, parking, or highway conditions.'

The proprietor of the hair salon stated to MailOnline back then: “The case is still pending, and we are adhering to all necessary protocols. We prefer not to make any additional comments.”