Residents in Bath are calling for a massive new property, believed to be the largest newbuild home in the city in a century, to be demolished. The property is under construction and nearing completion, but neighbors allege it was built without proper planning permission and significantly exceeds the size and height of the originally approved designs.
A retrospective planning application has been submitted to legalize the changes, but over 100 local residents have lodged objections. They fear that the Bath and North East Somerset Council may not be able to take effective action now that the construction is so advanced. Critics also contend that the situation highlights how multi-millionaires can exploit loopholes in the planning process.
Developers, identified as TKB Property Developments and TK Building Company LTD, have stated in documents related to the current application that they have attempted to keep the building as low as possible and that its height is similar to the approved plans. Thomas Worrall is listed as the applicant.
One of the neighbors, Tavis Hamilton, 48, who has been involved in disputes with developers over the property for a decade, estimates the completed home to be worth approximately £3 million. He described the property as "enormous" and said it dwarfs surrounding cottages, with a footprint large enough to contain about 24 of the other homes on the lane. Construction has been ongoing for three years, and the full scale is now visible.
Hamilton explained that initial permission was granted for a low-lying, single-storey building designed to be built into the hillside. However, he claims that when construction crews encountered groundwater, they backfilled the excavation with concrete, leading to a significantly taller structure than originally planned. Locals believe that the plot was purchased for £1 million with planning permission, and an additional £1 million may have been spent on excavation.
A survey by enforcement teams reportedly confirmed several deviations from the approved plans, including the building's increased height, larger footprint, and construction not taking place at the originally designated spot. Records indicate that the property has had multiple owners and planning applications since 2007, each seeking to increase its height and prominence.
More than 70 residents attended a recent site meeting, and over 100 objections have been filed against the seven-bedroom home. Hamilton believes the current application is a tactic to avoid enforcement action and argues that a cease order should be issued for all work on the site while a new, detailed planning application is considered. He suggested that early intervention years ago could have prevented the current costly and complex situation.
Locals assert that the orientation, siting, height, volume, footprint, and landscaping all deviate significantly from the initial plans, potentially setting a damaging precedent for the area. They describe the construction approach as "slap-dash, ill-considered, gung-ho" with "total disregard to the approved plans."
The property's height and shape are now largely complete, despite some remaining work. Neighbors feel the structure is "hugely overbearing" and alters the character of the lane and a nearby listed church. Some residents are calling for the structure to be torn down, though they acknowledge this is an extreme measure.
The increase in bedrooms from five to seven has also drawn criticism, with objectors noting the house was already approved as the largest in the council's history. They argue that retrospective permission should only be granted for unforeseen or minor adjustments, not for extensive changes that reward unpermitted development and cause harm to the environment and residential amenity.
Local councilor Joanna Wright has supported residents' calls for enforcement, calling the situation "outrageous." She stated that developers have repeatedly altered plans and extended the project, even after being asked to stop. She believes wealthy developers exploit the system to get what they want, contrasting it with ordinary residents who must adhere to strict rules.
The Bath and North East Somerset Council has declined to comment, stating that enforcement action will only be considered after the retrospective planning application is determined. The agent for the applicant stated in design and access documents that they purchased the site with existing plans, which were then amended for a more practical build due to issues such as groundwater and foundation stability. They maintain that the height and overall scale have not significantly changed from the initial approved plans.