Why is activity restricted at Kirstula while development is made possible elsewhere?

19 October 2026 – A statement by the owner of Kirstulan Kartano

My name is Tuomas Honkajuuri, and I run Kirstulan Kartano. I have been restoring the manor since 2003 and developing its activities for around 20 years. Our family's livelihood, the future of the business and the upkeep of the manor are now at risk because of years of uncertainty over permits and rising costs.

Lakeshores, tourism and entrepreneurship come together at Kirstula

Hämeenlinna wants to develop tourism and support entrepreneurship. Its city strategy promises a solution-oriented approach and partnership. The tourism implementation programme adopted in 2024 aims to create effective conditions for tourism growth.

On 5 October 2026, the city council considered an initiative by Kati Voutilainen and others to make the development of lakeshores a strategic priority for Hämeenlinna. The council noted the report and closed consideration of the initiative. The potential of the city's lakeshores has therefore also been discussed in municipal decision-making.

Kirstula brings together precisely these things: a lakeside bistro, tourism and accommodation services, a local family business and a historic manor whose upkeep is funded by the business. Our services are used by both visitors and local residents.

Why is it so difficult to find an acceptable way for these activities to continue? Support for entrepreneurship should also be reflected in the everyday experience of businesses already operating in the city.

The city changed its permit guidance during the process

In April 2022, the city instructed us in writing to apply for a temporary five-year planning exemption and the permits required on that basis. We commissioned the requested plans and documents and paid for their preparation. Later, however, the city changed its position and asked us to withdraw the application because proceeding required a detailed local plan.

We had already spent time and money following the city's earlier instructions. The planning process has stretched over several years, and we have not been given a sufficiently clear and workable solution for continuing our activities during that process.

In 2024, the Administrative Court overturned one enforcement order and conditional-fine decision concerning cabins and a sauna. This did not amount to approval of all our activities, but it demonstrates that the city's earlier guidance and the stages of the case cannot be disregarded.

Why can temporary solutions be advanced elsewhere, but not at Kirstula?

Containers and lightweight service structures are used or planned at several locations in Hämeenlinna:

At the Hämeensaari motorhome parking area, near the swimming hall and beach, the toilets and showers are in a separate sanitary container, according to the city's own 2026 service description.
Toribaari at the market square was described as a container bar in a 2022 thesis. The operator is also included in the list of market-square businesses for 2026.
The café at Mahlianpuisto consists of a sales trailer, a partly covered wooden terrace and a jetty, according to the operator's own description. It also has customer toilets.
A container café at the Meijeri sports ground was reported on the HJS website in 2023.
At Karnaalinpuisto, near Häme Castle, the city's autumn 2026 call for an operator proposes a café and service container and a terrace. This is a proposal, not a construction permit already granted.

In addition, Yle reported that a temporary permit was granted for the HugoPark sales kiosk at Aulanko, and fixed-term permits have been used in the development of Ahvenisto. The permit grounds for Ahvenisto's kiosk and storage facilities and other temporary structures at the market square should also be clarified. The current situation and permit conditions at sites documented in older sources must be checked separately.

One particularly concrete question is this: how do the city's own motorhome parking area's sanitary container and Kirstula's toilet and shower container differ for the purposes of permit assessment?

I am not claiming that the circumstances at every site are identical. Planning provisions and protection requirements may differ. However, I ask the city for concrete, site-specific reasons why temporary solutions can be advanced elsewhere while Kirstula's activities have been restricted for years without a clear path forward.

What would we need to change for an acceptable solution to be found?

A neighbour's opposition must not decide the future of our business

Documents I have received from the city contain demands to end camping activities, as well as messages opposing progress on the planning process and questioning the city's support for entrepreneurs. On the basis of these documents, I am concerned about how strongly a single neighbour's long-standing opposition has influenced the atmosphere and the handling of the case.

I do not dispute anyone's right to submit objections or report adverse impacts. But a neighbour's demands must not replace the city's own impartial assessment based on facts. The city must demonstrate that its decisions are based on the law, actual impacts and consistent principles.

The scale of the conditional fines is disproportionate

Kirstula has been made subject to €257,000 in conditional fines, and a further €80,000 has been proposed in relation to five small, movable accommodation units. If the proposal is approved, the total will rise to €337,000.

The new proposal is not yet a decision, and imposing a conditional fine is not the same as ordering it to be paid. Nevertheless, the threat and uncertainty already put the future of the business at risk.

At the same time, tourism services are being planned at Sotkanranta under an agreement with the city whose financial terms differ from Kirstula's situation. The city should also disclose the costs and terms of these projects transparently.

We need a workable solution from the city

I ask the city to respond publicly to the changes in permit guidance, the different treatment of temporary solutions, the handling of the neighbour's demands and the proportionality of the conditional fines.

We need a written, workable plan setting out the conditions under which Kirstula's activities can continue.

I want to maintain the manor and develop the area's services, rather than spend years trying to survive in constant uncertainty. The city's tourism and entrepreneurship objectives should also guide the handling of Kirstula's situation: alongside the supervisory and planning authorities, tourism and economic development specialists need to join the discussion.

If Hämeenlinna wants livelier lakeshores, more tourism and successful businesses, a lawful and practically viable future must also be sought for the family business already operating here.

This statement can cover only part of the events of many years and their background. I will share more about the matter and explain in greater detail the documents on which my views are based.

Tuomas Honkajuuri
Kirstulan Kartano

Sources and background material

News coverage of Kirstula

City objectives and comparison sites

This statement also draws on documents received from the city through a request for information, including messages received on 8 September 2023 and 28 August 2025. This announcement does not publish contact details from the messages or entire email chains.

← Back to news