Is planning permission needed to convert front of house into a hairdresser?

planning_officer

Going back to the original post - sorry to put a spanner in the works, but many of the initial replies are not entirely correct.


You CAN convert part of a dwelling into a business, provided the overall character of the property is still as a dwelling (i.e. the business would be ancillary and not a separate use). If this person was cutting one person's hair a day, and not employing anybody, it's really no different to the comings and goings of a normal house - so it's unlikely to require planning permission.


If the level of activity exceeds that and it becomes more of a "proper" business, then planning permission would be required, as the property would be a mixed use (part A1 (retail) and part C3 (residential)).


However, the above may well be a moot point - the OP says that the rest of the house will be rented out separately from the hairdressing salon/room. So there will be no connection between the two uses and one cannot therefore be ancillary to the other, regardless of the level of hairdressing activity.


In short, this particular use requires planning permission as a separate planning unit is being created. However that will not always be the case for homeworking - if the house was remaining in the same occupation (i.e. the dwelling and salon occupied by same person) and the level of hairdressing activity was low, it would be highly unlikely to require planning permission.

planning_officer

Freecall wrote: »

Davesnave is absolutely correct although most people don't realise it.

Freecall wrote: »

Over the years we have become used to the little planning notices that planning authorities provide as well as the letters to individual neighbours but these have never been a legal requirement.

The only statutory requirement to consult directly applies to a handful of 'statutory consultees' (Parish Councils and where appropriate, utilities and highways etc.).

For the general public the requirement to inform/consult is satisfied by the publication of what is known as the 'weekly list' at the authority's offices.

In practice most go much further than this with notices to ward members, listings in the local press and so on. These are not legal requirements however.

With the focus now on cost cutting, some authorities no longer send out letters to neighbours or planning notices but this is a local decision.

On the other side of the equation however is that all authorities now carry planning applications on their websites (not strictly a legal requirement but considered best practice and will mark down the authority's assessment score and ultimately their funding if they do not).

Therefore there is no chance of a planning authority being penalised for 'omitting to publicise' as suggested.

Go on-line and have a look is the answer.

Sorry, but this isn't correct.

There has always been a statutory duty (and still is) for LPAs to display a site notice for certain types of planning application - Major Development, anything involving a listed building, conservation area, etc.

For all other types of application (i.e. the normal householder extension or minor development), publicity is controlled by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Section 15 states that for these types of planning application, they MUST be publicised:

(a) by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or

(b) by serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.

So, a site notice OR letter to all adjoining neighbours is compulsory - any LPA not following those actions is liable to be highly criticised by the Ombudsman, or directed to award compensation to anyone affected etc.

Interestingly, the GDPO does not say who has to put up a site notice - so in Dave’s example, if the LPA is sending them out to applicants and they don’t put them up, it is really the LPA who is being negligent. It’s a rather risky approach for any Council to take - especially as it just adds to postal costs and an Officer will have to do a site visit anyway, so they might as well do it early and get the notice up (that’s what I tell my team of planning officers anyway!)

Davesnave

robatwork wrote: »

I can confirm this, and visit Davesnave every third Thursday of the month for a shampoo, set and blue rinse.

I think that might stretch the usage of my agriculturally-tied property beyond intended limits, although with the pig farm which led to its construction long gone, perhaps it could be viewed favourably as 'diversification.'

Hmmm.... the sheep dip could be a particularly efficient rinsing aid.:think:

Davesnave

planning_officer wrote: »

in Dave’s example, if the LPA is sending them out to applicants and they don’t put them up, it is really the LPA who is being negligent. It’s a rather risky approach for any Council to take - especially as it just adds to postal costs and an Officer will have to do a site visit anyway, so they might as well do it early and get the notice up (that’s what I tell my team of planning officers anyway!)

I think making applicants responsible for displaying notices invites misinterpretation of the term 'prominent position,' although in my case there's little doubt, because the notice is still clearly visible on Street View.

My experience of a major development in 2005, was of the original application being well publicised and notified via letters to residents. However, subsequent amendments were not.

Thus I found a 3 storey property going up beside a bungalow I was refurbishing, when previously I'd been shown plans for a landscaped green space in that position.

Being next to a private garden was probably more advantageous than a public space, but when I rang the council to complain about lack of notification, I was told that residents had been informed....via a notice on a lamp post in a different road!