A WESTCLIFF fish and chip shop owner has won a legal battle to live in a home built at the back of his store.

Seacrest Fish and Chips owner Anthony Stavrinides was told by Southend Council the two-storey home he had built at the end of his chippy did not meet planning regulations.

In the spring of 2018 Mr Stavrinides erected a wall between the preparation and storage area of his Westborough Road takeaway and a former storage space at the rear of the store, which he converted into a ground floor lounge and kitchen, with two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.

Get more great stories like this delivered to your inbox every day by signing up to our morning newsletter - don't miss out!

Last year the council rejected a retrospective application for planning permission, claiming the home was a “cramped and incongruous form of development”.

However, the plucky business owner took his fight to appeal, where government planning inspector Terrence Kemmann-Lane ruled in his favour.

Echo: Planning docs detail the layout of the homePlanning docs detail the layout of the home (Image: Seacrest)

Planning documents submitted on behalf of Mr Stavrinides by Planning Direct state: “The proposed, as existing, application for the flat has not affected the takeaway’s ability to operate as a business. The takeaway is still open and will continue to do so.

“The change of use is making good use out of a previously under-utilised space and has the advantage of creating a family home, something that is hard to come by.

“As an additional benefit, the applicant is occupying the flat, so he is in very close proximity to his business.”

The documents added the takeaway has a good extraction system “that controls unpleasant odours and noise”.

The council had argued the home, which is accessed via a footway running between Hildaville Drive and Fleetwood Avenue, was “harmful to the grain, character and appearance of the surrounding area”.

Planning officers claimed its windows overlooking nearby gardens were "harmful" to neighbours while the home itself “failed to provide useable private outdoor amenity space or waste storage”.

In his ruling, Mr Kemmann-Lane said: “I have concluded that there is no harmful effect from the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

“There is a lack of outdoor amenity space and waste and cycle storage facilities, but this is a dense urban area and the situation is not unusual.”

Mr Stavrinides declined to comment.