A yoga teacher is at war with her neighbours over an eight-man ‘teaching’ tent built in her back garden.
Sacha Latham, who lives in a £350k luxury seaside home in Brighton, has been battling with her local council for nearly two years to retain the large structure that she first constructed in May 2024.
The 12ft yurt, described as a ‘temporary’ build and accompanied with a composting toilet, decking and firepit, has been advertised online as a ‘safe space, promoting health and well being for everyone’.
The mother-of-four who described herself as feeling like ‘a kid at Christmas‘ when the building materials for the yurt first arrived, had hoped to teach ‘healing circles’, yoga classes and mini retreats in the garden of her picturesque seaside home.
She told MailOnline: ‘I started the building of the yurt in the pandemic almost out of boredom. It began quite organically as I had the space in the garden to work with.
‘I really gave it no thought and no planning so it wasn’t until I finished building it that I realised it was quite high.
‘It was all about building somewhere for the local community to go and for community development really. I would have loved to have started a craft group or some sort of youth club there. If I can make some extra money in the process then that is also a bonus but that wasn’t the goal at all.’
Ms Latham, who became visually impaired two years ago due to a genetic disorder, also believes that the yurt will provide an essential space for her to work from home and continue to promote her practice.
She said: ‘It has been a really difficult couple of years. I’m just trying to live my life the best that I can and there are so few spaces for people to go in Brighton.’
However, despite Ms Latham’s insistence that she had purely good intentions, several neighbours have since slammed the construction for being unsightly, while also raising concerns for the likelihood of significant noise and unpleasant odors.
Following neighbours’ complaints, Ms Latham was forced to submit a retrospective planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council in October 2024.
After this was refused, the yoga teacher, who has been practicing for nearly 24 years, then appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
Neighbours, who have pushed back against the application, had criticised the ‘misleading’ plans that described the yurt as a ‘vital element of support for a disabled person’, particularly given that it has been publicly advertised as being designed as a yoga space.
One neighbour described the yurt as both ‘inappropriate and anti-social’ in the ‘densely packed conservation area of Kemptown’ given its close proximity to neighbouring properties, while another alleged they had previously twice heard ‘party music’ coming from the building.
Meanwhile, another objector, who claims that Ms Latham never contacted them about the proposed construction, said that the yurt ‘has created a harmful sense of overbearing and loss of outlook for residents’ which has led to ‘a significant loss of residential amenity’.
One neighbouring resident even alleged that the firepit at the centre of the yurt ‘raises significant safety concerns for both visitors to the yurt and neighbouring properties’, due to the structure being built with combustible materials.
In a planning appeal statement submitted by Elena Rowland Architects it was asserted that Ms Latham’s visual impairment meant that and the outbuilding is therefore vital ‘to maintain her independence, both financially and physically’ by enabling her to work from home.
The statement added: ‘The yurt does not cause any harm to the character and appearance of the site, as it cannot be seen from the road, and it can be disguised with plants.
‘By its nature and by definition it is portable and it cannot be considered a permanent structure in the same category as brick/block/timber/metal buildings with concrete foundations.’
The appeal also assured that the yurt is unable to be ‘causing an unacceptable level of noise’ due to being fully lined with an insulating material, and that the structure is also unfurnished and yet to have been used for work or private activities.
Ms Latham’s appeal was refused by the council on March 6 due to ‘the effect of the yurt on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings’, alongside the impact the yurt could have ‘on the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers’.
The yoga teacher has described the majority of neighbours’ concerns and criticism as ‘ridiculously pathetic’.
She added: ‘I only want to work within the law. Almost everyone down here has some sort of construction because we all have big gardens.
‘The only thing that was wrong with the structure was that it was too high. People were just saying these things because they wanted to oppose it.
‘It’s short sighted really because having to bring it down and build another structure is going to create more noise, more people coming in and out and more nuisance.’
Ms Latham insists that despite the council’s rejection, she will ‘keep moving forward’ and plans to rebuild the yurt at a lower height.
In the documents outlining the appeal’s rejection, planning officer Martin Andrews said that he deemed the building to be ‘too large for this small residential garden’, raising concerns for the ‘effect of the use of the yurt on the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.’
He added: ‘The yurt is noticeable higher than the adjoining boundaries and therefore visible from a number of surrounding gardens and the windows of properties. It certainly draws the eye and looks patently out of place.
‘It is reasonable to assume that once completed the yurt will be a permanent feature, as the appellant wishes to use it from her home to give yoga lessons to members of the public.’
Councillor Liz Loughran, chair of Brighton & Hove City Council’s planning committee, said: ‘This yurt is nearly 4 metres tall, with a diameter of more than 5 metres, and effectively fills the rear garden of this home.
‘Concerns were raised over its impact on neighbours, the poor quality of materials used to construct it, the design, and that this would be a permanent structure given the length of time it has already been in place and its stated intended use for yoga lessons.
‘Retrospective permission was therefore refused – a decision which was subsequently upheld by the independent planning inspector, who commented on its unsuitability for a small garden in a densely populated part of the city.’
