The controversial plans for an 18,000-seat stadium at Bath’s Recreation Ground have generated a sharp divide across the city following the council planning committee’s decisive 8-1 vote in favor.
Bath Rugby’s longstanding goal of establishing a permanent stadium in the city center advanced significantly after the committee’s backing. However, final planning permission requires further government authorization and a review by the Secretary of State. Should the Secretary of State intervene, a planning inspector will conduct an inquiry into the project’s approval.
Bath Rugby expressed their enthusiasm in an official statement. Tarquin McDonald, the club’s Chief Executive, described the approval as “a landmark moment,” enabling construction of a stadium that promises a transformed matchday experience, world-class women’s and school rugby facilities, and a venue available for year-round community use. He emphasized the design’s respect for Bath’s iconic riverside views and its incorporation of sustainability measures.
READ MORE: Somerset Primary School Expansion Near Gigafactory Delayed by One Year
READ MORE: ‘Landmark cultural destination’ attraction with hidden galleries opens in Somerset
Conversely, the activist Save Our Rec campaign voiced deep disappointment. Campaigner Jay Risbridger condemned the project’s impact on the green heart of a heritage city, warning it could jeopardize Bath’s UNESCO World Heritage status and hurt tourism — key pillars of the local economy. Phillip Faulkner Corbett of Friends of Bath Recreation Ground echoed these concerns, lamenting the prioritization of a privately-owned stadium over heritage preservation.
Renowned director Ken Loach, a local resident, criticized the council for repeatedly breaking promises to protect the Recreation Ground. He cautioned that the stadium would severely affect local ecology, the environment, and the city’s unique heritage, setting a dangerous precedent for the development of community green spaces.
Bath Rugby stressed the rigorous consultation process, highlighting more than 5,000 public comments—about 95% in support—alongside no objections from statutory bodies including UNESCO. The revised design features lowered West and East Stand heights aimed at enhancing fan experience while preserving the area’s character.
The new stadium would replace the current temporary stands deemed eyesores. Supporting councillor Toby Simon called the project “good for Bath,” asserting the necessity to offer modern leisure activities like professional sports. Yet, concerns were raised about potential congestion, view obstruction, and tree loss. Councillor John Leach opposed the plans, citing that minor negatives outweighed benefits, while Councillor Ian Halsall emphasized that rugby is intrinsic to Bath’s identity, comparing it with historic landmarks such as the Roman Baths and Royal Crescent.
A total of 5,086 people supported the plans via council submissions, with 368 objections filed. The volume of responses was so substantial that planning officers employed AI technology to summarize feedback efficiently.
The council chamber was a sea of blue and black as Bath Rugby supporters, including former player and England international Jeremy Guscott, gathered to witness the committee’s decision, clearly highlighting the stark divide surrounding this pivotal development in Bath’s future.