A yoga teacher has lost her appeal to keep a yurt in her back garden.
Sacha Latham, of Arundel Road, Brighton put up the yurt last May, intending to use it as a yoga classroom.
After neighbours complained, she submitted a planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council but it was turned down in October
She appealed but planning inspector Martin Andrews said that the yurt occupied most of the width of the back garden, with minimal distance from neighbouring properties.
Mr Andrews said: “In principle a yurt could be appropriate for a residential context when sited in a large and verdant garden in the lower-density suburbs of a town or city or even more aptly in such a garden in the countryside.
“In these situations, the yurt’s substantial size would be acceptably proportionate for its site and there would be opportunities for screening by trees and vegetation to make it less noticeable from the public realm
“However, the appeal site is the exact opposite of this, given its location in a small garden in a densely populated part of the city.
“The yurt is noticeably higher than the adjoining boundaries and therefore visible from a number of surrounding gardens and the windows of properties in Arundel Road and Lewes Mews.”
Mr Andrews agreed with council officers that the yurt was unsightly.
The appellant submitted a statement, prepared by Elena Rowland Architects, saying that the yurt did not harm the wider area because it could not be seen from the road.
But Mr Andrews placed more weight on its visibility from neighbouring homes.
The statement said that a yurt is a tent used by nomadic tribes so was not a permanent structure.
But Mr Andrews said that while it may technically be the case, Ms Latham planned to use her yurt for yoga lessons.
It was therefore “reasonable to assume” that it would remain as a permanent structure in the garden.
The inspector found that the yurt harmed the character of the area and conflicted with government policy for “well-designed places” because it was too big for the garden.
Ms Latham said that no classes had taken place in the yurt and it had not been used for social gatherings so Mr Andrews did not consider noise an issue.
“The space within the yurt clearly does provide a potential for social gatherings,” he said, “and for many more people than the maximum of eight yoga students.”
As a result it was likely that noise would travel beyond the boundaries of the property.
He added: “On the other hand, in fairness to the appellant, I must accept the submissions made on (Ms Latham’s) behalf unless there is incontrovertible evidence that they are inconsistent with the use stated in the planning application.
“With that said, this finding does not outweigh my conclusion in the council’s favour on the first main issue of the harmful effect of the yurt on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings.”
Ms Latham was approached for comment.
Had a strong feeling this appeal was going to go this way. Good thing is there’s a few community spaces nearby she could run classes from instead, should she wishes.
Government and council interference is too much now
So anyone can just do anything and hang the consequences or the effects on their neighbours?
Is that what you want?
I don’t know why there’s a problem.. it is near the rough area – Whitehawk – of town. H ave you seen the disgrace that is the top of Wilsons Avenue recently.. Clear that up for a start… get rid of those other caravans too..there’s supposed to be a designated site at Horsdean after all
Which were quite often told is at capacity
So this would be a problem in a ‘posh’ area but not here because it’s near a ‘rough’ area?
Are you really saying that?
I’m saying that yes.. this woman is trying to earn a living whereas she’d probably be far better off claiming all sorts of benefits and doing nothing like most of the people living near her. I’m not saying it’s right to differentiate between types of areas but why should she be penalised by the planning department?
Do you think the disgrace of a scene at the top of Wilsons Avenue would be tolerated in Arundel and Lewes Crescents?
Oh Andrew…this was a really silly thing to say. Problems aren’t limited geographically. A “rough” area as you put it is just an argument to be more focused on improvement and tackling issues.
The problem is when people turn around and say, “I don’t see the problem, it’s just a rough area.”
An appeal to normality, status quo, red herring, moralistic, or a false dilemma. Pick with logical fallacy you want to go with, Andrew – they are all wrong.
“You Can’t Always Get What You Want”