Bath residents demand £3m mega-mansion is torn down over planning breaches

A millionaire property developer is at war with residents who are demanding his mega-mansion is torn down, claiming it was built without any planning permission. 

The huge property under construction on the edge of Bath is believed to be the biggest newbuild home constructed in the historic city in the past 100 years.  

And enraged residents have claimed the home is significantly taller and has a larger footprint than what was originally approved by the local council. 

With the building nearing completion, a retrospective planning application has been lodged to ’validate’ the changes from the original plans.  

More than 100 locals oppose the ’monstrous’ mega-mansion; however, they fear Bath and North East Somerset Council has left it too late to enforce any meaningful action. 

They claim the recent series of events underscores how multi-millionaires find, as well as use and abuse, loopholes during the planning process. 

Developers claimed they tried ’to keep the building as low as’ possible and said they felt its height was ’similar to the approved plans’ in documents relating to the latest proposal.

Mr Thomas Worrall, a director of TKB Property Developments and TK Building Company Ltd, is listed as the applicant of the plans.

Bath and North East Somerset Council declined to comment, adding enforcement action would only be ’considered’ after the fresh application had been determined.

Tavis Hamilton, 48, who lives next door and has spent a decade battling developers, estimated the ’mega home’ to be worth £3million upon completion.

’It is enormous and dwarfs all the cottages,’ he said. ’You could fit around 24 of the other cottages into the footprint.

’It has been built for the last three years, but it has now been topped out so you can see the full height and scale.

’It just shows how unfair the process is. It seems if you put the wrong guttering on your house or use the incorrect glazing, the council jump on you for enforcement.

’But you can build this enormous structure without the right planning permission and no enforcement is carried out until it is too late.’

The 48-year-old, who lives with his partner Charlotte Bolton and daughter, explained permission had initially been granted for a low-lying single-storey building located on the lane of traditional Georgian properties. 

The proposed property was meant to be built into the hillside; however, when construction workers hit groundwater, they backfilled the hole with concrete, he said.

As such, the plans have materialised into a home which he describes as ’significantly higher’ than what was proposed.

The plot was originally sold for £1million with planning, and locals believe another million may have been spent on excavation. 

A survey carried out by enforcement teams confirmed several deviations from approved plans, including the building being higher and larger than proposed.

It also found construction had not taken place in the spot approved in previously outlined proposals.  

Since 2007, the property has had several different owners and planning applications, each looking to increase its height and prominence, locals said.  

Meanwhile, more than 70 residents attended a recent site meeting over the issue, as over 100 lodged objections to the seven-bedroom home as construction continues. 

Mr Hamilton believes the latest application was lodged as part of a ’wider game to avoid enforcement action’ as he insists a cease order should be applied to the site. 

’The changes are so significant and widespread that all the rest of the drawings from roof light location also require total update,’ he said. ’A cease order needs to be applied to all works on site whilst a detailed new planning application is submitted.’

He also argued that if it had been put in place when concerns were first raised years ago, the issue could have been resolved before the concrete pad was poured. 

’This could have been resolved then, reducing the damage that will now be more difficult and costly to rectify,’ he added.

He also argued that the ’significant’ deviations from the original plans set a damaging precedent for the future of the area.  

Locals said the orientation, siting, height, volume, footprint and surrounding landscaping all ’significantly’ deviate from the original plans and would set a damaging precedent in the area.

’They have just pushed on and built whatever they wanted, with a slap-dash, ill-considered, gung-ho approach with total disregard to the approved plans,’ he said. 

’It has been incredibly stressful, but you feel powerless. People are just upset by the long history - they apply for one thing and end up with another.’

And while pictures of the site indicate developers still have some work to do on the property, such as a skylight, its height and shape have been fully formed.  

’You can see the impact and size and how it sits with the plot as soon as you come down the lane,’ Mr Hamilton added.

’It is hugely overbearing on the access and completely changes the character of the lane and the listed church.

’Some want to see it just torn down. It is an extreme measure and I don’t know if Bath and North East Somerset would ever enforce that. But it would be lovely to see it just built as it should have been. Lack of enforcement has just let it go too far.’

He explained the main source of anger was its increase in height and massing with it growing from a five-bedroom to a seven-bedroom property.

It comes after another ’monster mansion’ was built on the other side of Mr Hamilton and his family’s home.

Now, as a result of this recent structure, he claims that he is ’sandwiched between two of the largest single residences built in Bath in about 100 years’.

Locals said the original developer won permission to build the biggest property allowed on the plot – despite several objections – and then put it straight on the market.

It was then bought by a wealthy individual who submitted three or four more applications to make it higher and more prominent. Then it was again sold to another wealthy individual about three years ago, who has continued with construction.

On the council website, one local expressed their fury at the number of bedrooms being increased from five to seven. 

’It was already noted as the largest house ever approved by the council, and now apparently will include seven bedrooms,’ they wrote in their objection.

’It is completely out of keeping with other properties on Bailbrook Lane, one of which is the historic tin church, a listed heritage building.

’The sheer volume of variations demonstrates that the developer has treated the formal planning approval as a mere box-ticking exercise.’

They argued that retrospective permission should only be given to rectify ’unforeseen’ or ’genuinely minor’ adjustments. 

They argued approving the ’extensive list’ of changes would set a ’dangerous precedent ’.

Local ward district councillor Joanna Wright supported residents’ calls for enforcement action, describing the situation as ’outrageous’. She said: ’They got planning permission in 2013, and they haven’t built it to that plan. They keep extending it and changing who owns it,’ she said.

She added she has again written to enforcement and planning, lambasting it as an example of wealthy developers knowing how to ’play the game’.

’I understand the anger local residents feel about the whole process,’ she said. ’They are told they cannot do things, and that is the end of it. 

’Yet this developer ignores all that; they know the process, so they keep carrying on and jumping through all the hoops to get what they want.’

She decried the behaviour of the developers as ’outrageous’, pointing out the ’vast’ building would be taller and bigger than the neighbouring Grade-II listed church.  

’It is a very narrow single-track road. This has had a huge impact on the neighbours,’ she said, explaining other homeowners have now been told they can’t have extensions due to the impact on the area’s heritage.

’They should be made to tear it down,’ she said. ’It is one rule for a wealthy person - they get what they want by playing the system - and another for everyone else.’

Bath and North East Somerset Council declined to comment. 

It is understood that the retrospective planning application is currently being determined. Only if the application is refused will the council consider formal enforcement action.

In its design and access statement, the agent for the applicant said they purchased the site with the planning and technical details already produced.

They added: ’This was then amended to allow for a more realistic and practical build.’

They said changes from the original plans included new basement areas, amendments to roofs and window and widening access.

In documents relating to the latest proposal, the applicant wrote: ’All of these amendments were decided based on the structure and practical aspect of building the single storey elements.

’As they were first designed, they would not have stable foundations and could not be built in made up ground. The amendments were necessary at the time of construction to allow for a safer build.’

They said the water on the site was ’constant’ at the lower basement level, causing the ground to be saturated. 

’The only way that could be stabilised was to stop where they did and fill it with hardcore,’ they added. ’So this then gave a solid base for the concrete pour.

’There came to light after engineering details were done some of the suggestions did not practically work, or could physically be done.

’So the ideas to extend the basement and some of the internal levels were taken.

’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.’

They argued the scale and overall size of the property had ’hardly changed from the initial approved plans’, adding the overall look was ’the same’.  

’We have tried to make sure the heights are not over the approved plan even if adjusted due to the build.’

Planning agents representing Mr Worrall have been approached for comment.