Neighbours lose battle against millionaire's mega-mansion: 'City's biggest newbuild in 100 years' gets the green light despite being built without permission

Neighbours of a 'mega mansion' believed to be the largest newbuild home in Bath in 100 years have lost a decade-long planning row.Developer Thomas Worrall has been allowed to keep his luxury seven-bedroom mansion in a beauty spot despite critics claiming it was a 'blatant' breach of planning permission.The home on the edge of the city was built significantly higher and with a bigger footprint than what was initially approved, according to residents who submitted more than 100 letters of objection.Initial plans were first submitted in 2013, with permission being granted in 2021 for a five-bedroom home, set into the hillside.But what has been built was a much larger home, along with its own gym and cinema room which were not part of the original approved plans.Critics say the building is also in a different orientation, about 130 sq m larger and up to 2m taller - now towering over the spire of a tin church next door.Mr Worrall submitted a retrospective application to avoid enforcement action and validate the build.Councillors have now approved it, amid fears it would end up as a derelict building or the local authority would face an appeal. The home was built significantly higher and with a larger footprint than what was initially approved, according to neighbours It is believed to be the biggest newbuild home constructed in the historic city in the last 100 years This artist's impression shows what the finished building will look like. Developers claimed they tried 'to keep the building as low as' possibleResidents submitted more than 100 letters of objection But residents have now accused Bath and North East Somerset Council of authorising a 'two tier' system, alleging it highlights how multi-millionaires are able to abuse and find loopholes during the planning process.Speaking at the decision meeting, neighbour Paul Raithby told councillors: 'The applicant, their surveyor and your own case officer all acknowledge that what has been built is an intentional breach of planning control.'There is zero demonstrated local need for a seven-bedroom luxury mansion to justify overturning planning laws.'Several councillors said they had 'reluctantly' agreed to the changes which ultimately won a vote by seven to two.Planning officers had recommended approval as it was 'policy compliant' despite being built without permission.Councillor Tim Warren said: 'I don't like it but I think we have no option but to go along with it.'Fellow councillor Saskia Heijltjes said: 'Residents improving their homes must follow approved plans exactly.'The owner of the tin church next door is doing everything by the planning book - however long it takes. Initial plans were first submitted in 2013, with permission being granted in 2021 for a five-bedroom home, set into the hillside Developer Thomas Worrall has said: ''Once it's complete, it will be a lovely building''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.'Councillor Shaun Hughes said: 'This isn't a clerical error - a seven-bed luxury house with gyms and cinema room and stuff.'This was not an error where they accidentally reoriented the building and added two bedrooms in.'Mr Worrall has previously said he had bought the plot with planning permission for the site but had to make some changes 'on the ground' due to the water table and ground conditions.He said the amendments were necessary at the time of construction to allow for a safer build while the expanded basement was 'added for structural purposes.'Speaking after the verdict, Mr Raithby said: 'It just continually goes to prove that the planners do not really have the teeth to fight a developer with deep pockets, and that is what it seems to come down to.'Another neighbour said: 'This just makes a mockery of the system.'They pretty much all agreed that there were significant changes and that it should be subject to a new planning application, but then just passed it anyway.'To suggest the only alternative was to leave a derelict building in situ is so poor. There are many many routes to go down before that point.'There needs to be an investigation into the failings of a planning authority who have allowed this to happen.'Tavis Hamilton, 48, who lives next door to the massive house and has spent ten years battling developers, said locals feared the council left it too late to carry out meaningful enforcement.He added: 'It is an absolute mega home - it will probably be worth more than £3million when it's finished. It is enormous and dwarfs all the cottages.'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.'Mr Hamilton, who lives with his partner Charlotte Bolton and his daughter, said permission was initially granted for a low-lying single-storey building built into the hillside but when the builders hit ground water they backfilled the hole with concrete.The end result has been a home he describes as 'significantly higher' than planned and in a different spot.It has gone through three different owners since 2007 and multiple planning applications - each time looking to increase its height and prominence, locals say.Enforcement teams have carried out a survey and confirmed several deviations from the approved plans - including the building being higher, larger and not in the approved spot.Mr Hamilton added: 'The new application was part of a wider game to avoid enforcement action. The changes are so significant and widespread that all the rest of the drawings from roof light location also require total update.'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.'What little architectural merit this structure had, has now been lost completely by ill-considered and unapproved changes.'Speaking after the decision was made, Mr Hamilton described it as a 'fundamental failure of planning responsibility, accountability and enforcement'.He added: 'Why did the enforcement department fail to take meaningful and timely action when these breaches were brought to their attention, particularly when the foundations and footings were being laid and there was still an opportunity to prevent the development progressing in its unauthorised form?'These were not minor discrepancies or technical details that could reasonably be dismissed as insignificant variations. They went to the very heart of the original planning approval and the reasons the development had been designed and approved in the first place.'The council had an opportunity, and arguably a clear responsibility, to intervene. Instead, the development was allowed to progress to a point where the physical scale of what had been built made enforcement increasingly difficult.'In documents related to the latest proposal, developers said they had 'tried to keep the building as low as we could' and 'feel that the overall height of the building is similar to the approved plans.'Mr Worrall, of Yate near Bristol, said previously: 'The whole street has been against me from day one.'I only bought the site to build my own house with planning permission already on it. Someone else took it all to planning seven years ago.'There have been complications on the ground and the professional builders were not able to make it work so it was a little bit higher to start with.'The neighbours all seem to think I have screwed the system and been sneaky. But I am not. I've now pulled all my guys off site and trying to deal with the planners.'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 per cent not true.'I just want an easy life. I want to get my house finished and move my family into it.'It was due to the awkwardness on the ground. I was meant to have a swimming pool in the basement but had to lose that as we couldn't dig any lower.'It was causing so much stress about a year ago I tried to sell it. But it was a mess and no one would buy it so I had to tinker on.'I am not the baddie everyone seems to think I am. I just want to finish the job and move in with my family.'Once it's complete, it will be a lovely building. The architects are telling me there is not that much difference - just a slight difference with height.'I am sorry to everyone for the inconvenience of it all. But I want to be a good neighbour. It will be a lovely building with green grass on the roof.'I am just in the hands of planners. I want it to be right. There will be no more work on site until they are 100 per cent happy.'