Brighton Back Garden Yurt For Yoga Appeal Refused

A Brighton based 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.