Couple who live in a yurt told they have to move on by government-appointed planning inspector

Richard Youle, local democracy reporter

A couple who say they run an environmental charity from a yurt in a field in Gower have been told they have to remove their tents from the land and stop living there.

Bob Smith and Jules Wagstaff, trustees of Climate and Community, said they’d leased the land for four years but hadn’t lived onsite from the outset.

Swansea Council’s planning department was made aware of the camp and issued an enforcement notice in March this year requiring them to cease educational use of land, off Manselfield Road, Murton, remove the tents and steel containers, take down the two yurts and stop residential use.

Appeal

Mr Smith and Ms Wagstaff appealed the notice but a Welsh Government-appointed planning inspector has ruled in favour of the council.

“We are deeply disappointed,” said Ms Wagstaff, who said she has a degree in environmental science.

“They are not taking climate change seriously. That’s why we are here.”

The couple said 39 comments in support of their work had been submitted to the planning inspector.

Mr Smith, who said he used to be a software developer and project manager, said living in a yurt reduced their carbon footprint by about95% compared to living in a house.

He added: “Where is the harm? We are here to solve problems.”

Sustainable living skills

The charity’s aims are to teach people sustainable living skills, such as hedge-laying, coppicing and “no dig” food growing using woodchips, and to educate people about environmental issues.

The council said the yurts, tents, two steel storage containers and residential use of the land was unauthorised.

The inspector appointed to determine the appeal visited the field last month and described the scale of the structures as “not inconsiderable”.

Her decision report said planning permission was being sought to authorise the activities and land use that was occurring.

She considered what was before her to be residential development in the open countryside, which is generally not permitted.

“In addition, the appellants claim the second yurt is to accommodate volunteers overnight on a temporary basis, but I have nothing to confirm how many this would be, how often, or for how long,” she said.

Her report added: “At the time of my visit, preparation of the no-dig beds was at a very early stage and across a modest area.

“I appreciate that Covid and the lack of a surfaced track have hindered progress, but the appellants have been on site for some time, yet the main focus of the proposed activity – ie the trial and demonstration of no-dig growing – has seen no actual planting or growing activity.

“The appellants state that there are security and emission reduction benefits of living onsite.

“However, tools are stored in lockable storage containers, and while part of the power for the yurt comes from solar panels and a wood burner, there is also a diesel generator.

“They also state that in the development phase there are no earnings to support workers so the cost of conventional housing is prohibitive.”

Inappropriate 

But she said no business plan or financial information had been provided, and it would be inappropriate to grant a temporary permission due to a lack of evidence.

She added the size and number of tents seemed disproportionate to the “modest” scale, duration and regularity of educational activity.

Her report added the storage containers were within a designated green wedge, and a wooded section of the land formed part of a designated site of interest for nature conservation.

The development, she said, in particular the storage container at the access at Manselfield Road caused “unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area”.

The inspector said developments which mitigated against and adapted to climate change were supported in planning policy, but “a limited contribution to climate change matters does not outweigh the lack of compliance with other development plan policies”.

Dismissing the appeal, the inspector did, however, extend the time required to comply with the enforcement notice.

Mr Smith and Ms Wagstaff have three months to remove the tents and containers, and a year to take down the yurts and stop living there.

Charity work

The site’s landowner said an agreement had originally been given to Climate and Community to carry out charity work on the land but, as the inspector’s report had indicated, what had been achieved was disappointing.

He added: “It was never my intention for them to live on the site as their permanent residence.”

Ward councillor Will Thomas said: “There is no residential planning in place for this land and they have been living there. It’s not something we want to encourage. What did they expect?”