Felicity Etheridge spent around £10,000 on the building in Beeston
06:21, 20 Apr 2026Updated 07:21, 20 Apr 2026
The Felicity Mays beauty salon cabin at a property in Lilac Crescent, Beeston(Image: Joseph Raynor/ Reach PLC)
A young Nottinghamshire businesswoman fears she may have to tear down her £10,000 nail salon after council planners took issue with the “posh shed”.
Felicity Etheridge, 18, has been plunged into an unexpected planning dispute with her council after a complaint was made over the small salon she built to the side of her mum’s home in Lilac Crescent, Beeston.
Believing they did not need planning permission for the small structure, Felicity and her mum, Kelly Batley, 44, were stunned when they discovered this was not the case, as the salon’s roof protruded slightly past their home’s bay window.
“That’s the only thing they got us on; if that didn’t overhang, they would have had any grounds to make us do any application,” Felicity, who launched her business in October, said.
Having paid around £700 to submit the application, the pair were optimistic they would be given permission for the temporary structure, which Ms Batley described as a “posh shed”.
However, Broxtowe Borough Council refused on March 26, with a planning officer finding the salon’s design, position and materials “unduly prominent” at the corner property.
The council official also said the construction meant there was not enough space in their garden.
“The denial was so sudden because everything looked so positive,” Felicity said.
“I thought ‘, Oh, we’ve messed up a little bit, now we’re rectifying it, everything will be fine’. And then it was like ‘what the hell?'”
Ms Batley claimed that her partner had asked a planning officer if there was anything obvious that would mean it was turned down, to which the official had apparently shaken their head.
“All the neighbours were coming past saying how lovely it was, and people were saying how brilliant it was to have something like this here.”
Felicity’s mum said that the council had told her the salon was poorly built and that everything else surrounding it was red brick, which she denied, and explained that they would be willing to change the incomplete cladding.
The mother and her daughter expressed frustration over an alleged lack of communication following the planning refusal, adding that they were willing to change the salon’s look and remove it in a few years’ time.
“The only difference with us is that we are on a corner property,” Felicity said on the council’s comment that the salon was too prominent, adding that lots of people had set up similar additions to homes during the Covid pandemic.
On the council’s concern over the family’s lack of outdoor space, she added: “I would totally understand if it were a council property, if we were renting, but my parents own this house.”
Felicity’s passion for her work started when she was just 14, she explained.
Four years later, she set up her own business as she had difficulty working in other salons due to her ADHD and Autism.
“I’ve spent four years of my childhood building this from the ground up. I have made an actual wage that I can live off,” she said.
“For six months, I had no wage to pay for this. I started paying myself in January this year, and now I’ve had to stop again because of the legal fees.”
She added her mental health would be “absolutely ruined” if she had to demolish her business premises and go back to working in a salon.
Felicity is considering whether to resubmit the planning application or appeal the refusal, and has started a GoFundMe to fund the fight.
However, she is worried that she may have to pay the council’s fees if the Government’s Planning Inspectorate sides with them in an appeal.
“That will ensure that I have no future,” she added. “I will have no business.”
A spokesperson for Broxtowe Borough Council said the “personal circumstances” of the young business owner were not a planning matter, so the application was refused.
“The planning department assesses all cases based on adopted planning policy, and this site was refused planning permission on grounds of design and amenity,” the council representative said.
“The council must consider that while tenants may change, the building is there for its lifetime.
“Applicants’ personal circumstances are not a material planning consideration and as such the development was refused.
“The applicant is entitled to appeal, and they have been made aware of their options.”
