Bath mansion wins retrospective approval despite breaches of agreed plans

A seven-bedroom house built larger, higher and in a different position from its approved plans can remain after councillors in Bath granted retrospective permission, ending a decade-long planning dispute that neighbours say exposes unequal treatment in the planning system.

Bath and North East Somerset Council approved Thomas Worrall’s application by seven votes to two. Several councillors said they supported it reluctantly, amid concerns about a possible appeal or the prospect of leaving the building derelict. Planning officers had recommended approval because they considered the proposal “policy compliant”.

The house, on the edge of the historic Somerset city, is believed to be Bath’s largest new-build home in 100 years. Residents submitted more than 100 objection letters. They argue that the council missed opportunities to intervene before construction advanced, while Worrall says difficult ground conditions required changes to make the building safe and denies deliberately exploiting the system.

Plans for the site were first submitted in 2013. Permission granted in 2021 allowed a five-bedroom house set into the hillside. The building now has seven bedrooms, a gym and a cinema room that were not part of those approved plans.

Residents say it is about 130 square metres larger, up to two metres taller and differently orientated, rising above the spire of the neighbouring tin church. An enforcement survey confirmed several departures from the approved scheme, including its height, size and position.

Worrall sought retrospective permission to regularise the development and avoid enforcement action. The decision allows him to retain what has been built, but neighbours dispute the reasoning behind accepting it.

At the meeting, resident Paul Raithby said: “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.”

Councillor Saskia Heijltjes contrasted the development with work at the tin church next door, whose owner she said was following the planning process despite the time involved.

“If this is approved as built, many will conclude that B&NES has a two tier planning system: one set of rules for those who follow them, and one for those who build first and ask questions later,” she said.

Councillor Shaun Hughes also challenged the suggestion that the departures were accidental, pointing to the changed orientation and addition of two bedrooms, a gym and a cinema room. Councillor Tim Warren said he disliked the situation but believed the committee had no alternative to approval.

After the decision, Raithby said it appeared that planners lacked the ability to challenge a developer with substantial financial resources. Another neighbour rejected the suggestion that a derelict building was the only alternative, arguing that other options remained and calling for an investigation into the planning authority’s handling of the case.

For Tavis Hamilton, 48, who lives next door with his partner, Charlotte Bolton, and his daughter, the central issue is why enforcement did not take place while the foundations and footings were being laid.

Hamilton, who has lived there for 20 years and spent ten years challenging development at the site, said residents feared the council had left it too late to take meaningful action. He estimated that the completed house would be worth more than £3 million and said it dwarfed neighbouring cottages.

He described the decision as a “fundamental failure of planning responsibility, accountability and enforcement”, arguing that the departures were substantial rather than technical discrepancies.

“The council had an opportunity, and arguably a clear responsibility, to intervene. Instead, the development was allowed to progress to a point where the physical scale of what had been built made enforcement increasingly difficult,” he said.

“The developer was effectively allowed to establish a fait accompli, leaving the council to consider whether to accept retrospectively what it should have been addressing before it happened.”

Hamilton said residents had repeatedly identified breaches, submitted evidence, pursued enforcement officers and challenged decisions without securing timely intervention. He argued that accepting the changes disadvantaged developers who followed approved plans and undermined confidence in planning safeguards. Residents also fear the decision will set a damaging local precedent.

The lane contains traditional Georgian properties built in Bath stone. Hamilton said the original permission envisaged a low, single-storey building embedded in the hillside, but that the eventual construction had not started deep enough and stood significantly higher and in a different position.

His account is that builders encountered groundwater during excavation and subsequently backfilled the hole with concrete and construction rubble. Worrall likewise attributes the changes to groundwater and ground conditions, although he disputes neighbours’ interpretation of his actions.

Residents say the site has passed through three owners since 2007 and been the subject of repeated applications seeking greater height and prominence. They describe an original developer securing permission despite opposition and then marketing the plot, followed by a purchaser who pursued three or four further applications. The current owner, they say, bought it about three years ago and continued construction.

The plot originally sold for £1 million with planning permission. Residents estimate that a further £1 million may have been spent on excavation. Hamilton said another very large house had been built on the other side of his home, leaving his family “sandwiched between two of the largest single residences built in Bath in about 100 years.”

Worrall, of Yate, near Bristol, has previously said he bought the site with permission already in place, rather than devising the original scheme. He said professional builders encountered conditions that prevented them from constructing it as intended.

“The neighbours all seem to think I have screwed the system and been sneaky. But I am not. I’ve now pulled all my guys off site and trying to deal with the planners,” he said previously.

“It was just a few mistakes on site. They think I have all this money and want to play the system but that is 100 per cent not true.”

He said the intention was to finish a family home, not manipulate the planning process. A proposed basement swimming pool had been abandoned because excavation could go no deeper, he said, while the enlarged basement was necessary for structural purposes.

Worrall also said stress had led him to try to sell the property about a year before his earlier comments, but its unfinished condition deterred buyers. He said his architects considered the difference in height slight, apologised for the inconvenience and promised no further work until planners were satisfied. The finished building, he said, would have grass on its roof.

The applicant’s agent said in the design and access statement that the site had been purchased with planning permission and technical details already prepared.

“The amendments were necessary at the time of construction to allow for a safer build,” the statement said. “We have tried to keep the building as low as we could and we feel that the overall height of the building is similar to the approved plans.”

Bath and North East Somerset Council declined to comment.