A yoga teacher is making a second attempt to keep a yurt in her back garden in the face of opposition from her neighbours.
Sacha Latham, who lives in Arundel Road, put up the yurt in May last year with the intention of using it as a yoga classroom.
But after a neighbour complained, Brighton and Hove City Council told her she needed planning permission.
Her application was refused in October and she has now appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
The council refused the application as the tent was not considered “high-quality design” and used “poor quality materials for a permanent structure”.
The yurt is also described as of “excessive scale and height” creating a “prominent addition detracting from the character and appearance of the site and the wider area”.
An appeal statement, written by Elena Rowland Architects, argues the yurt does not harm the wider area as it cannot be seen from the road.
The appeal also states as the yurt is a tent used by nomadic tribes, it is not a permanent structure and is used as a small outbuilding and should not count as a development.
Ms Latham’s appeal statement said: “The appellant is a visually impaired person, who is trying to maintain her independence, both financially and physically, by being able to continue to work as a yoga teacher from home.
“In order to do that, the appellant is in the process of building a yurt in her rear garden.
“The work has been suspended since the visit of a planning officer, triggered, we understand, by a neighbour’s complaint to the council, and the subsequent request to apply for planning permission.”
Neighbour’s opposing the application raised concerns about potential noise and some complained about existing noise from the yurt.
However, the appeal statement said the yurt has not been used.
The appeal statement said: “The yurt is not finished and it has never been used for either work or private enjoyment, as work ceased when it emerged that planning permission was required.
“In fact, the yurt has never been used for any event, any workshop, or any private use.
“The appellant has not used the yurt for work yet. The planned use of the yurt for six to eight participants of yoga lessons cannot possibly be described as ‘significantly harmful noise and disturbance’.
“The lessons will be barely audible from the surrounding properties due to the optimal insulation of the yurt walls and because yoga is by definition a quiet, gentle, meditative activity that does not give rise to noise.”
A government planning inspector will make the final decision on whether the yurt can stay in place.
Why does this lady think planning permission doesn’t apply to her? What arrogance. Rent a room like other yoga teachers have to.
Missed the bit about visual impairment and independence or just like the sound of your own voice echoing through your self-righteous head?
In the context of planning applications and appeals, personal circumstances, such as the appellant’s disability, are generally not considered material planning considerations.
Because it’s not permanent and obviously thought it fitted with permitted “outbuilding” policy that doesn’t require planning presumably
By definition a yurt is a temporary structure. Ask the nomadic Turkic peoples who invented the yurt. Madness. Let the woman have her yoga retreats…
Yes, except it’s quite clear she intends to keep this “temporary” structure on a permanent basis.
Being there since May last year certainly suggests this.
Looks better than most out buildings, and easier to take down when it is no longer required. Rules are rules, but in this case I see no harm and hope it is given permission. The neighbours sound pretty stuck-up if this attractive tent upsets them.
I guess the Brighton and hove planning department and it’s Jack Boot inspectors will be out enforcing these same rules on all the “temporary tents” occupying areas around the city. Pavements, parks, shopfront doorways. Last I saw they weren’t occupied by people doing Yoga!
Horrible overbearing development that impacts on neighbouring properties. If it’s allowed, it creates a precedent and that is dangerous territory.
Rent a Tent have complained she didn’t get on of theirs
An interesting initiative, an option to support the growing need for purposeful activity, probably by folk in the local area, the lower cost will be to the advantage of those who wish to improve their physical and spiritual nature, Although I don’t live nearby and so I cannot get involved in the more emotive side and the negative comments, it perhaps meets many needs. Perhaps we should concentrate more on the positive side of such projects in our city.
Personally, I have no issue with the activities in question, I think we could have a debate about fulfilling needs, just based on what’s already available in both classes and places. However, when it comes to planning permission, there does not seem to be a logical or lawful reason for it, and several permissible reasons why it should not be allowed, so on balance it should be rejected.
Yoga is generally a quiet meditative activity and therefore unlikely to generate much noise, if any at all. The Yurt itself is more pleasing to the eye than most garden sheds, trampolines etc, and is fairly easy to dismantle.
I hope the lady wins her case and is left in peace to enjoy it.