Neighbours of a “mega mansion” thought to be Bath’s largest newly built home in a century have lost a planning dispute that has lasted a decade.
Developer Thomas Worrall has been given permission to retain the luxury seven-bedroom property in a beauty spot, despite residents describing it as a “blatant” breach of the original planning approval.
Residents said the house, on the edge of the city, was constructed substantially higher and with a larger footprint than the scheme originally approved. More than 100 letters of objection were submitted.
Plans were first lodged in 2013, while permission was eventually granted in 2021 for a five-bedroom house built into the hillside.
However, the property that emerged was considerably larger and included a private gym and cinema room, neither of which appeared in the approved plans.
Opponents also said the building had been turned to a different orientation, was around 130 sq m larger and stood up to 2m higher. They claimed it now towered over the spire of the tin church beside it.
Mr Worrall submitted a retrospective planning application in an effort to prevent enforcement action and regularise the development.
Councillors have now approved the application, amid concerns that rejecting it could leave a derelict structure on the site or expose the local authority to an appeal.
Neighbours said the house was built considerably higher and with a larger footprint than the approved plans allowed
The property is believed to be the biggest new-build home constructed in the historic city in the past 100 years
An artist’s impression of the completed house. Developers said they had tried “to keep the building as low as” possible
More than 100 letters objecting to the development were submitted by residents
Residents have accused Bath and North East Somerset Council of creating a “two-tier” planning system, arguing that the case shows how wealthy owners can exploit loopholes and breach rules during the planning process.
Speaking at the meeting where the application was decided, neighbour Paul Raithby told councillors: “The applicant, their surveyor and your own case officer all acknowledge that what has been built is an intentional breach of planning control.
“There is zero demonstrated local need for a seven-bedroom luxury mansion to justify overturning planning laws.”
Several councillors said they had agreed to the changes “reluctantly”, but the application was approved by seven votes to two.
Planning officers had recommended approval, saying the proposal was “policy compliant” despite the building having been constructed without permission for the changes.
Councillor Tim Warren said: “I don’t like it, but I think we have no option but to go along with it.”
Fellow councillor Saskia Heijltjes said: “Residents improving their homes must follow approved plans exactly.
“The owner of the tin church next door is doing everything by the planning book, however long it takes.
Plans were first submitted in 2013, with permission granted in 2021 for a five-bedroom home built into the hillside
Developer Thomas Worrall previously said: “Once it’s complete, it will be a lovely building”
“If this is approved as built, many will conclude that B&NES operates a two-tier planning system: one set of rules for people who follow them and another for those who build first and ask questions later.”
Councillor Shaun Hughes said: “This isn’t a clerical error — it’s a seven-bed luxury house with gyms, a cinema room and more.
“This was not a mistake in which the building was accidentally reoriented or two bedrooms were added.”
Mr Worrall previously said he bought the plot with planning permission already in place, but changes had been required “on the ground” because of the water table and ground conditions.
He said the amendments were necessary to make construction safer, while the larger basement had been added for structural reasons.
After the decision, Mr Raithby said: “It continually proves that planners do not really have the teeth to challenge a developer with deep pockets. That is what it seems to come down to.”
Another neighbour said: “This makes a mockery of the system.
“They essentially agreed that there had been significant changes and that a new planning application should be required, but then approved it anyway.
“To suggest the only alternative was leaving a derelict building in place is a very poor argument. There are many routes that could have been pursued before reaching that point.
“There needs to be an investigation into the failures of a planning authority that allowed this to happen.”
Tavis Hamilton, 48, lives next door to the property and has spent 10 years opposing the development. He said residents believed the council had waited too long to take effective enforcement action.
He added: “It is an absolute mega-home and will probably be worth more than £3million when complete. It is enormous and dwarfs all the cottages.
“It shows how unfair the process is. If you install the wrong guttering or use the incorrect glazing, it seems the council will quickly pursue enforcement.
“Yet you can construct an enormous building without the correct planning permission and no action is taken until it is too late.”
Mr Hamilton, who lives with his partner Charlotte Bolton and his daughter, said approval had originally been granted for a low-lying, single-storey building set into the hillside. But after builders encountered groundwater, they filled the excavation with concrete.
The result, he said, was a house that stood “significantly higher” than planned and had been built in a different position.
Locals said the site had changed hands three times since 2007 and had been the subject of several planning applications, each seeking to increase the building’s height and prominence.
Enforcement officers surveyed the property and confirmed several departures from the approved plans, including its increased height and size and its location outside the approved position.
Mr Hamilton added: “The new application was part of a wider attempt to avoid enforcement action. The changes are so extensive that even details such as roof-light locations require the remaining drawings to be completely updated.
“They carried on and built what they wanted, taking a slapdash, poorly considered and gung-ho approach that showed complete disregard for the approved plans.
“Whatever architectural merit the structure had has now been completely lost through ill-considered and unauthorised changes.”
Following the decision, Mr Hamilton called it a “fundamental failure of planning responsibility, accountability and enforcement”.
He added: “Why did the enforcement department fail to take meaningful and timely action when these breaches were reported, particularly while the foundations and footings were being laid, when there was still an opportunity to stop the development progressing in its unauthorised form?
“These were not minor discrepancies or technical details that could reasonably be dismissed as insignificant variations. They affected the core of the original planning approval and the reasons the development had been designed and permitted in the first place.
“The council had an opportunity, and arguably a clear responsibility, to intervene. Instead, the development was allowed to reach a stage where its physical scale made enforcement increasingly difficult.”
In documents supporting the latest application, the developers said they had “tried to keep the building as low as we could” and believed “the overall height of the building is similar to the approved plans”.
Mr Worrall, from Yate near Bristol, previously said: “The whole street has been against me from day one.
“I only bought the site to build my own home, with planning permission already in place. Someone else took it through the planning process seven years ago.
“There were complications on the ground, and the professional builders could not make it work, so it was a little higher from the outset.
“The neighbours seem to think I have manipulated the system and acted sneakily, but I have not. I have now taken all my workers off site while I try to resolve the matter with the planners.
“There were simply some mistakes on site. They think I have lots of money and want to play the system, but that is 100 per cent untrue.
“I just want an easy life. I want to finish the house and move my family in.
“The changes were caused by the difficult ground conditions. I was supposed to have a swimming pool in the basement, but we had to remove it because we could not dig any deeper.
“The situation caused so much stress that I tried to sell the property about a year ago. But it was a mess and nobody would buy it, so I had to carry on working on it.
“I am not the baddie everyone seems to think I am. I only want to complete the work and move in with my family.
“Once it is finished, it will be a lovely building. The architects tell me there is not a great deal of difference, just a slight change in height.
“I am sorry to everyone for the inconvenience, but I want to be a good neighbour. It will be a lovely building with green grass on the roof.
“I am now in the hands of the planners. I want everything to be right, and there will be no further work on site until they are completely satisfied.”
