A property dispute has erupted in Bath, England, where residents are calling for a colossal new mansion to be demolished. The structure, believed to be the largest newbuild home in the city in a century, is under scrutiny for allegedly being built without the necessary planning permission and for substantial deviations from the originally approved designs.
A retrospective planning application has been submitted to legalize the changes made during construction. However, over 100 local residents have lodged objections, expressing fears that the Bath and North East Somerset Council may be unable to take meaningful enforcement action now that the building is nearing completion. They also point to the situation as an example of how wealthy individuals can exploit loopholes in the planning process.
Developers, associated with TKB Property Developments and TK Building Company LTD, have stated in documents related to the new application that they endeavored to keep the building as low as possible and that its current height is similar to what was initially approved. Thomas Worrall is listed as the applicant for the current plans.
Resident Concerns and Allegations
Residents like Tavis Hamilton, who lives adjacent to the property, have been engaged in a decade-long battle with developers over the site. Hamilton estimates the completed mansion could be worth £3 million and notes its immense scale dwarfs surrounding cottages, with a footprint large enough to accommodate approximately 24 of the older homes. He described the building process as having a "slap-dash, ill-considered, gung-ho approach with total disregard to the approved plans."
According to Hamilton and other locals, permission was initially granted for a single-storey building designed to be built into the hillside. However, construction encountered groundwater issues, leading to the excavation being backfilled with concrete. This, they claim, resulted in a structure significantly taller than originally proposed.
Local ward councillor Joanna Wright has supported the residents' calls for action, labeling the situation "outrageous." She stated that the developers have continuously altered plans and ownership, circumventing enforcement efforts by submitting variations. Wright suggested this pattern exemplifies wealthy developers understanding how to manipulate the system, contrasting it with ordinary residents who face strict enforcement for minor infractions.
A survey conducted by enforcement teams reportedly confirmed several discrepancies, including the building's increased height, larger footprint, and construction in a location different from the approved site. Locals also contend that the orientation, siting, volume, footprint, and landscaping all represent significant departures from the original plans.
Planning Process and Precedent
The site has reportedly seen several owners and planning applications since 2007, each seeking to increase the property's size and prominence. More than 70 residents attended a recent site meeting, and over 100 objections have been filed against the seven-bedroom home.
Residents argue that retrospective permission should be reserved for unforeseen or minor adjustments, and approving these extensive changes sets a dangerous precedent. They believe it rewards unpermitted development that harms the local residential and environmental character.
The developers' agents, in their design and access statement, claim they inherited planning and technical details upon purchasing the site and made amendments for a more practical build. They cite issues with unstable foundations and saturated ground requiring stabilization with hardcore as reasons for extending basement areas and internal levels. They maintain that the overall height and size have not significantly changed from the initial approved plans and that adjustments were necessary for a safe build.
Bath and North East Somerset Council has declined to comment, stating that enforcement action will only be considered after the retrospective planning application has been determined. If the application is refused, the council will then evaluate formal enforcement measures. Residents, however, fear that by the time a decision is made, the structure will be too far along to effectively enforce original plans or order its demolition.