Headland Planning Appeal Fails: Former Salon Must Stay Commercial Inspector Rules.

The property in Hartlepool's Northgate

Government Inspector Rejects Bid to Turn Vacant Salon Into Flat, despite there being similar developments in the area.

22nd November 2025

Plans to convert a former beauty salon on Hartlepool’s Headland into a one-bedroom flat have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate—confirming Hartlepool Borough Council’s original refusal and ending the applicant’s year-long fight to turn the empty property into a home.

The property, located at 21 Northgate, sits at the heart of the Headland’s historic local centre. The owner, Mr Thomas Cawley, had applied to change the use of the vacant commercial unit into a ground-floor residence, arguing that the unit had been empty for years and was no longer viable as a business. He also told the council and the inspector that he required accessible ground-floor accommodation due to personal circumstances.

But the council rejected the plans earlier this year, and now a Government Planning Inspector has agreed—dismissing the appeal in a detailed decision handed down earlier this month.

Local Centre Policies Come First, Inspector Rules

The Inspector found that the main issue was on whether removing a commercial unit would damage the vitality and viability of the Headland’s Northgate local centre—an area specifically protected under the Hartlepool Local Plan (Policy RC16), which seeks to keep shops, services and businesses operating at ground-floor level.

While the policy does allow alternative uses where a unit has been properly marketed and shown to be no longer viable, its claimed Mr Cawley could not provide the necessary evidence.

Because of this, the Inspector concluded the loss of a commercial premises “would conflict with the policy objective of maintaining the vitality and viability of the local centre.

Vacant Units Not Enough to Justify Conversion

Northgate, on the Hartlepool Headland has seen a significant decline in footfall, leading to a number of commercial units becoming vacant for a significant period of time.

Mr Cawley argued that a decline in commercial activity made the salon’s return to business use unlikely. And the Inspector did acknowledge that multiple nearby shops were also vacant.

Equality and Human Rights Considered – But Not Enough to Overturn Policy

In a more unusual aspect of the case, the appellant emphasised personal circumstances relating to disability and accessibility. Under the Equality Act 2010, the council and the inspector were legally required to consider these needs.

The Inspector acknowledged that the appellant had a genuine need for accessible housing and accepted this was a material consideration carrying weight.

But ultimately, it did not outweigh the planning harm caused by losing a commercial unit in a protected retail area:

“Personal circumstances do not demonstrably outweigh the harm arising through conflict with the development plan.” (Planning Inspectorate)

The Inspector also confirmed the decision did not breach the applicant’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, calling the refusal a “proportionate” response in line with legitimate planning aims.

What Happens Now?

With the appeal dismissed, the former salon remains designated for commercial use only 

unless:

• full marketing evidence is produced in a future application

• the council revises its local centre policy (unlikely)

• a material change in circumstances occurs

  
  

For now, the unit remains empty—part of a growing pattern across Hartlepool where local centres struggle between commercial decline and strict planning protections that prevent residential conversion, despite claims similar developments are present nearby.