“To sculpt a head of hair with scissors is an art form. It’s in pursuit of art,” the late celebrity hairstylist Vidal Sassoon said.
The NSW Land and Environment Court has embraced Sassoon’s sentiments. In a ruling touted as a “big win” for hairdressers and beauty therapists, the court granted approval for a hair and beauty salon in Sydney’s inner west on the basis that the site will be “used for creative purposes”.
The site of the proposed hair and beauty premises at 30–32 Murray Street Marrickville and (inset) one of Salon Lane’s existing sites in Sydney.Credit: Google Earth, Salon Lane, Aresna Villanueva
At the heart of the case was a dispute between a company and Inner West Council over whether a commercial and industrial building opposite the Marrickville Metro shopping centre could be fitted out for a hair and beauty premises by Salon Lane, which rents space to independent businesses.
Salon Lane already has locations in Sydney, including Bondi Junction and Surry Hills.
The council said the salon was prohibited because the Inner West Local Environmental Plan says consent for business or office space in the area, zoned general industrial, must be refused unless the council is “satisfied ... the development will be used for creative purposes”, including media, advertising and fine arts.
NSW Land and Environment Court Commissioner Joanne Gray considered whether a hair and beauty salon was a business “used for creative purposes”.
“From the mohawk to the ‘short back and sides’, a person’s hairstyle can range from an expression of personality to a demonstration of conformity,” Gray said at the opening of her decision.
“[Over] history, particular hairstyles have been representative of a class or occupation, symbolic of a social movement or a requirement of a religious persuasion.”
Gray said the council argued that “although some hairstyles are a form of creative expression, hairdressing is often a purely utilitarian exercise that forms part of standard personal grooming”.
But she concluded hairdressing “involves skilful design” and “the same is true of a beauty salon, where the design is in the transformation of the face and other body parts”.
The council also argued the proposal would thwart the objectives of the zoning, aimed at limiting non-industrial uses of the area, but Gray said the salon would not be out of character because it was “in the vicinity of other non-industrial uses, such as a children’s play centre and a gym”.
Maysaa Parrino, a partner at Project Lawyers in Sydney, acted for the successful applicant. “The fascinating part of this case is the way in which our client obtained the approval, which was through an unusual and untested planning provision,” Parrino said.
That provision prohibited a wide range of business or office premises, subject to the exception for developments used for creative purposes.
“Proving that hairdressing was a creative purpose involved our client’s senior counsel [Tim Robertson, SC] taking the court on a history lesson traversing the different eras, cultures and the rich history of hairdressing and fashion throughout Roman and Greek times, Ancient Egypt and modern times,” Parrino said.
She said the decision was “a big win for the hairdressing [and beauty] industry”.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.