The hair-raising court battle over a salon in Sydney’s inner west

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.