The host property comprised a semi-detached house and the appellant had erected a yurt. The latter was constructed of canvas and set on a wooden plinth. Two nearby wooden structures were used by tourists for cooking and washing. The inspector accepted that while all the structures had a relatively low profile the yurt was clearly out of character with the area. They were also well used by visitors and it was likely that during pleasant weather the garden would be used for amenity and recreational purposes. This would be potentially disturbing, a conclusion reinforced by the appellant’s need to take steps requiring users of the accommodation to keep noise to a minimum and remove barbecue facilities. This harm outweighed any benefit associated with encouraging tourists into the area.
Inspector Kevin Nield; Written representations
