Appeal 6003208

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission for the use of a timber clad outbuilding to the rear of [site address] as a hairdresser’s salon was granted in August 2025, subject to conditions. [name] 2 on the original planning permission1 stated: The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday. The reason for the condition was: In the interests of the amenities of existing residential property in the locality and to comply with Policies SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – [name] and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant applied to the Council to alter the opening hours of the premises to 08:00-22:00 Monday-Friday and 08:00-18:00 Saturday & Sunday. The Council approved that application but not with the opening hours sought by the appellant and imposed the condition as detailed in the banner heading.

Taking the above into account the main issue is whether the condition, as imposed, is reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

The appeal building lies in the rear garden of [site address] which is a semi-detached dwelling in an established residential area. It has planning permission to be used as a salon and I saw that it is fitted out for hairdressing with two customer 1 Council reference 251937 chairs, a hair washing sink and chair and small areas of storage. The building has windows and doors in the front elevation, facing towards the neighbour’s property, [address] (No 44).

The residential estate is referred to by the Council as a quiet area and I have no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the appeal building is within the rear of the property which would be quieter than the roadside. While on site the appellant started the hairdryer, which is likely to be the noisiest piece of equipment used, and this was not audible from outside the building. I also accept that there is sufficient parking on the driveway, or across the front of the drive, for customers.

Nevertheless, the increase in hours proposed, especially the additional five hours in the evenings and the ten hours on Saturdays and Sundays would not be a modest extension to the hours of operation. The proposed increase in hours would result in a significant change to the scale, nature, and operation of the business. It would substantially extended periods of customers coming and going from the appeal building, late into the evenings and all day on weekends. Even though the business operates on an appointment only basis and has no more than two customers at any time, the proposed hours would be a significant change to the level of customer movements currently experienced in the immediate area.

The effect of the additional hours, to the level proposed in the application, would result in a substantial increase in comings and goings and associated noise and vehicle movements. This would be at times in the evenings and weekends where neighbouring occupants are at home, relaxing or sleeping. The proposed opening hours would, therefore, be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties, specifically No 44. The harm would not constitute a noise nuisance and, therefore, the Council Environmental Health Officer did not object. However, there would still be harm to living conditions.

Although the appellant advises that they only work three days a week and would be willing to restrict the later opening hours to school holidays only, this is not what has been applied for and I can only assess the appeal before me. Moreover, there is conflicting information between the appellant’s statement and their final comments as to which days they work. [name] were to allow the appeal as submitted it would allow the appellant to open for the full extent of the hours as proposed. There would be no means to restrict the number of days operated till 22:00, or to limit the business at weekends or to only permit the extended hours during school holidays. There is also no means to prevent the appellant sub-letting the premises to another operator during the hours that they do not work, even if this is not what they intend to do.

The letters of support would not alter this position. The appellant has also been clear that they would not accept the temporary permission recommended by the Council which would have enabled the full effect of the hours to have been assessed. In dismissing this appeal, the appellant would still have two planning permissions under which they can operate. The second permission would allow some additional hours to provide the appellant with some flexibility. I accept that this still restricts their ability to carry out colour appointments in the evenings and may result in greater number of comings and goings up to 20:00. However, these would not be as harmful as extending till 22:00 and Saturday afternoon and Sunday working. Moreover, I have no compelling evidence that the appellant’s business is reliant on colour appointments being carried out in the evenings or that the business would no longer operate under the hours permitted by the Council.

The light pollution concerns of the neighbour relate to the increased triggering of the security light at the back of the host dwelling. Although the increase in customers would likely increase the light being triggered this could occur from the residential occupation of the dwelling. Lighting from within the appeal building would not adversely affect the living conditions of the neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, I have not permitted the opening of the premises till 22:00 so the effect of the security light would be restricted.

For the above reasons, the condition as imposed, limiting the opening hours, is both reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. The condition ensures that the use complies with the requirements of Policies E3 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031 which, taken together, support small-scale economic activity, including home working and local enterprise, where it would not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, including by noise disturbance or unsociable hours of operation, and seek to safeguard residential amenity for residents.

The suggested list of conditions provided by the Council, as part of the appeal documentation, is not an agreement from the Council that the proposed hours are acceptable. That list is for my benefit and recommends conditions, were I minded to allow the appeal.

Other issues have been raised by interested parties including, but not limited to, private matters between the property owners which are not material to the appeal

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.