Developer Thomas Worrall has been permitted to keep his seven-bedroom mansion on the outskirts of Bath after neighbors lost a ten-year planning dispute. Critics claimed the property, believed to be the largest newbuild in the city in a century, was constructed in a "blatant" breach of planning permission.
Planning Dispute Details
The home on the edge of the city was built significantly higher and with a larger footprint than initially approved. Initial plans submitted in 2013 were granted permission in 2021 for a five-bedroom home set into the hillside. However, the completed structure includes a gym and cinema room not present in the original plans. Neighbors reported that the building is oriented differently, is approximately 130 square meters larger, and stands up to 2 meters taller than what was approved, towering over a neighboring tin church spire. Mr. Worrall submitted a retrospective application to validate the build and avoid enforcement action.
Council Decision and Resident Objections
Councillors approved the retrospective application by a vote of seven to two, citing fears of the building becoming derelict or the local authority facing an appeal if it were not validated. Planning officers recommended approval, stating the build was "policy compliant" despite being constructed without permission.
Residents, who submitted over 100 letters of objection, accused Bath and North East Somerset Council of authorizing a "two-tier" system, suggesting that wealthy individuals can exploit loopholes in the planning process. Neighbor Paul Raithby stated at the decision meeting that the applicant, surveyor, and case officer all acknowledged an intentional breach of planning control, questioning the justification for overturning planning laws for a luxury seven-bedroom mansion.
Fellow councilor Saskia Heijltjes noted the discrepancy, stating that residents improving their homes must follow approved plans exactly, while the owner of the adjacent tin church adheres strictly to planning regulations. "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 remarked. Councilor Shaun Hughes emphasized that the deviations were not minor clerical errors but significant additions like gyms and cinema rooms that were not part of the original plans.
Developer's Explanation
Mr. Worrall explained that he purchased the plot with existing planning permission but had to make on-site changes due to water table and ground conditions. He stated these amendments were necessary for a safer construction, with the expanded basement added for structural purposes. He claimed builders were unable to adhere to the original plans, leading to a slightly higher build. He also mentioned attempting to sell the property a year prior due to stress but found no buyers, compelling him to continue the project.
He added that the street had been against him from the start and that neighbors believed he had "screwed the system" but insisted he was not being sneaky. "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 percent not true," he said, expressing a desire for an "easy life" and to finish his family home. Mr. Worrall apologized for any inconvenience and stated he wanted to be a good neighbor, assuring that the building would be lovely once complete, with architects confirming only a slight height difference.
Neighbor's Perspective
Neighbors expressed frustration, with Tavis Hamilton, who lives next door, describing the situation as a "fundamental failure of planning responsibility, accountability and enforcement." He questioned why enforcement teams did not take timely action when breaches were first reported, especially during foundation laying, when intervention could have prevented the unauthorized development from progressing. Hamilton argued that the changes were not minor discrepancies but went to the core of the original planning approval. The council had an opportunity to intervene but allowed the development to reach a scale where enforcement became more difficult.
Hamilton described the house as an "absolute mega home," likely worth over £3 million upon completion, which dwarfs the surrounding cottages. He felt the process was unfair, contrasting the council's strict enforcement for minor issues like incorrect guttering with the allowance of a large structure built without proper permission. The retrospective application, he suggested, was a strategy to avoid enforcement action, with significant deviations requiring a complete update of all drawings. He criticized the "gung-ho" approach with disregard for approved plans, stating any original architectural merit had been lost.
In response to the council's decision, neighbors lamented that it proves planners lack the power to fight developers with "deep pockets." They felt the decision made a mockery of the planning system and called for an investigation into the council's failings. They also contested the claim that leaving a derelict building was the only alternative, stating many other routes could have been pursued.