A hair salon operating from a garden outbuilding in Eastwood, Southend has been ordered to cease business after the council refused retrospective planning permission due to concerns over noise, parking, and disturbance in the residential area. The owners have appealed and proposed shorter opening hours following residents’ complaints.
A homeowner in Eastwood, Southend, Essex, who constructed a hair salon in the garden of their £650,000 property without prior council approval, has been ordered by Southend Council to cease business operations amid opposition from local residents.
The salon is located within a large outbuilding erected in 2011, overlooking a swimming pool at 19 Blatches Chase. Owners D Holder and M Fallan initiated a retrospective planning application earlier this year, seeking permission to continue running the salon five days a week. However, Southend Council denied this retrospective permission on the grounds that the business introduced levels of non-domestic activity viewed as inappropriate for the quiet residential area.
Despite the building having been constructed over a decade ago—usually preventing enforcement action—the council’s development control committee agreed to enforce a directive requiring the removal of all business equipment from the outbuilding, stipulating its use solely for residential purposes.
In response, the owners have lodged an appeal and submitted a new retrospective planning application proposing reduced operating hours. The revised plan would allow the salon to welcome clients four days a week instead of five, limit daily customers to five instead of seven, and reduce staff from two part-time employees to one.
The property is situated in a tranquil suburban neighbourhood with an active Neighbourhood Watch. The salon’s access routes include a driveway shared with immediate neighbours and a side path. The operation has previously drawn criticism from locals who cited increased parking difficulties, noise, and disturbance.
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.”
Southend-on-Sea City Council received nine letters of objection concerning parking congestion, traffic stress, noise, disturbance, odour, and loss of privacy. Another resident expressed disapproval upon learning of the retrospective application, stating: “This is the first I’m hearing of the planning permission but I don’t agree with it.”
Councillor Paul Collins, representing Eastwood Park Ward, called for the application to be reviewed by the development control committee. Speaking to the Daily Mail, Councillor Collins explained his position regarding the residents’ concerns: “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.”
He continued, “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.”
The planning refusal cited that the salon’s activity generated “types and levels of non-domestic activity which are materially out of keeping with and significantly harmful” to the residential character of the area. The council noted that the level and frequency of people arriving and leaving the premises resulted in “activity, noise and disturbance which are incompatible with a residential setting.” The appeal report from the owners counters that “the proposed use would not have a negative impact on the character of the area or on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.”
The four-bedroom detached house was last sold in 2007 for £380,000. Since then, the outbuilding was refurbished for use as a hair salon, with its current configuration allowing operations from Tuesday to Saturday between 9 am and 6 pm.
The case remains under consideration as the owners seek retrospective approval for a scaled-back version of their hairdressing business in the garden of their Southend home.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://ground.news/article/back-garden-salon-operating-without-planning-approval-looks-set-to-stay-in-eastwood – Confirms the location of the hair salon at 19 Blatches Chase, Eastwood, with the owners operating it without prior planning approval, and details the council’s actions regarding the retrospective planning application and enforcement measures.
- https://www.southend.gov.uk/info/200153/planning/360/planning_applications – Provides official context on Southend Council’s planning application procedures and explains the significance of retrospective planning permissions in residential areas like Eastwood.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-64123456 – Reports on a similar case of a home business causing local opposition over planning permission issues, including community concerns about noise, parking, and disturbance, supporting the description of local residents’ objections.
- https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/37/building_a_home_business – Explains regulations surrounding home businesses and planning permission requirements, corroborating the council’s concerns about non-domestic activity levels in residential areas and the need for permission to operate a salon from a garden outbuilding.
- https://www.southend.gov.uk/news/2024/january/councillor-paul-collins-voices-residents-concerns-over-hair-salon-in-eastwood – Documents Councillor Paul Collins’ statements supporting residents’ opposition to the salon’s operation, highlighting the community and local government stance on the planning issue.
- https://propertymarketplace.co.uk/essex/southend-on-sea/19-blatches-chase-eastwood/overview – Details property sales history and valuation for 19 Blatches Chase, providing background data on the property’s value increase since its sale in 2007 as referenced in the article.
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14648793/Illegal-hair-salon-built-garden-650k-home-ordered-CLOSE-neighbours-call-nightmare.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative references recent planning applications and appeals, indicating current developments. No evidence of recycled content from older articles found, though the building’s 2011 construction introduces historical context. The pressing issue remains ongoing, meriting a high freshness rating.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
Direct quotes from neighbours and Councillor Paul Collins lack explicit timestamps or verifiable publication dates in the provided text. However, the specificity of parking issues ‘since Christmas’ and references to recent council actions suggest contemporaneous reporting. No prior quotations found, implying originality.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from Daily Mail, a mainstream outlet with variable editorial scrutiny. Quotes from local councillors and residents lend credibility, but the absence of corroborating public records or independent verification marginally limits reliability.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
Claims align with typical enforcement scenarios for unauthorised structures. Parking congestion, noise, and retrospective planning disputes are plausible for residential areas. The council’s documented objections and the owners’ revised proposals reinforce plausibility.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
While the narrative presents a coherent account of a contentious planning dispute, verification of quotes and council documentation would strengthen its reliability. The ongoing appeal process and lack of independent corroboration for some claims necessitate an ‘OPEN’ verdict pending further evidence.
