Residents neighbouring what is believed to be the largest newbuild home in Bath in the last 100 years are calling for the structure to be demolished after it was built without proper planning permission. The expansive residence, often referred to as a ‘mega mansion’, sits on the outskirts of Bath and reportedly exceeds in height and footprint the dimensions originally approved by planning authorities.
Tavis Hamilton, 48, who lives adjacent to the property and has spent the past decade contesting the development, is among more than 100 locals who have formally objected to the build. Despite these objections, many fear the local council has acted too late to enforce any corrective measures effectively.
Now that the building is “topped out” and nearing completion, the developers have submitted a retrospective planning application to regularise the changes made from the original plans. However, residents argue this process reveals how affluent individuals can exploit loopholes within the planning system to their advantage.
READ MORE: A38 Closed Near Major M5 Junction Following Fatal Collision
READ MORE: Traffic Disruptions on M5 Between Taunton, Bridgwater and Wellington
Bath and North-East Somerset Council declined to provide specific comments on the matter but noted that enforcement action would only be considered once the retrospective application has been reviewed.
Hamilton described the property as an “absolute mega home” potentially worth over £3 million, which significantly dwarfs the surrounding cottages, with its footprint large enough to fit approximately 24 of those properties. He expressed frustration over the perceived inconsistency of the council’s enforcement, lamenting that minor infractions receive immediate action whereas such major deviations go unchecked until near completion.
Over 70 local residents recently attended a site meeting to voice their concerns. The controversial seven-bedroom house deviates markedly from the initial single-storey, low-lying dwelling approved, as the construction company filled a water-logged excavation with concrete, raising the structure’s height and shifting its location.
The development has undergone ownership changes and multiple planning applications since 2007, each iteration seeking increased size and prominence. Council enforcement teams have confirmed several breaches of the approved plans, including the home’s height, size, and positioning.
Hamilton argued that the retrospective application seems intended to circumvent enforcement, calling for an immediate work halt until a new, detailed planning application is submitted. He noted this issue arose two years ago when the concrete slab was poured but went unaddressed, resulting in complications now harder and more costly to resolve.
Neighbours have criticised various aspects such as the building’s orientation, scale, and landscaping, which they say undermine the area’s character and set an unwelcome precedent.
The house’s size now exceeds that of a nearby Grade II listed church, intensifying local disquiet. Hamilton described the development approach as “slap dash” and dismissive of previously approved plans, causing considerable stress to residents, who feel powerless over the unfolding situation.
Photographs from the site show the house’s full height and shape, although minor finishes remain incomplete. Hamilton said the imposing structure alters the character of the lane and that some locals believe the only solution is demolition, though he doubts the council would enforce such a measure.
The lane principally comprises traditional Bath stone Georgian properties, and residents are particularly upset by the unapproved increase from five to seven bedrooms and the altered siting of the home, which no longer aligns with the hillside as planned.
Developers claim that adjustments were necessary due to site conditions such as encountering groundwater, leading to foundation modifications. They maintain the building’s overall height is similar to that originally approved, despite the changes.
The plot, initially purchased for £1 million with planning permission, has seen significant additional expenditure, reportedly upwards of £1 million, primarily on excavation. Hamilton noted that his family now finds themselves “sandwiched” between two similarly large homes recently built in the area.
Another local expressed concerns that the scale and number of retrospective changes suggest the developer viewed the original permission as merely perfunctory. They warn that approving extensive variations would reward unpermitted development and damage the local environment and residents' amenity.
Local councillor Joanna Wright supports calls for enforcement, criticising the repeated changes and apparent disregard for conditions imposed by the council. She highlighted frustrations that enforcement actions have been slow or ineffective, attributing the situation to developers adept at manipulating the planning process.
Wright pointed out the development’s disproportionate scale compared to neighbouring properties, as well as the impact on the narrow local road and nearby heritage buildings. She characterised the property as significantly more expensive and larger than what other residents are permitted to build, emphasising the disparity in enforcement for wealthy individuals.
Bath and North East Somerset Council confirmed the retrospective planning application is under consideration and stated enforcement would only proceed if the application is refused.
According to planning documents, the developers purchased the site with planning permission and technical details in place but found modifications necessary for a practical and safe build. These included basement expansions, roof and window alterations, and access widening, all justified by ground conditions such as saturated soil and groundwater.
The applicant, Thomas Worrall from Yate near Bristol, stated he bought the site solely with existing planning permission and encountered unforeseen complications during construction, leading to deviations from original plans. He denies intentional wrongdoing, asserting he merely wants to complete the home and live there with his family. He emphasised that all work is currently halted pending approvals and indicated a desire to be a good neighbour and ensure the completed building meets planning requirements.