New stadium at The Rec would be ‘Bath’s biggest carbuncle ever’

4 April 2025 by Victoria Nunes

The filmmaker Ken Loach has penned an objection to revised plans for a new stadium at The Rec, saying it would be “the biggest carbuncle Bath has yet suffered”.

How the proposed stadium would look from above | Image © Bath Rugby

He is one of thousands of people who have responded to the latest plans for the home of Bath Rugby, with opinion very much divided.

The latest design retains much of the planning application from 2023, including an 18,000-capacity stadium, increased community use, regeneration of the riverside and a new café/restaurant, club shop and museum for non-matchday use.

The revised design includes a new curved roof form which reduces the height, resulting in increased views of the city and surrounding hills; enhanced landscaping to the river; a redesign of the East and West Stand façade; and a re-engineered and enhanced seating bowl.

But in his objection submitted to Bath & North East Somerset Council, Mr Loach, who has lived in the city for over 40 years, says the application is “ill-conceived, inappropriate, and would cause great harm to the conservation area, the iconic views, and the outstanding universal values of this World Heritage Site.”

He says the plan is not substantially different to the previous one; for example, the height of the roofs is the same except that the north ends are curved and slope down.

He adds: “The building of a large modern sports stadium in the heart of the Georgian city is simply absurd. The visual context for the city has long been cherished.

“The view of the green hills from the Abbey and Orange Grove with the delicate Pulteney Bridge on the left and the handsome North Parade to the right, will be broken by the unavoidable presence of a large modern sports arena. It is hard to think of a more visually destructive proposal than this.”

Ken Loach | Photo © Koca Vehbi / Shutterstock.com

Mr Loach says it is “no wonder that UNESCO has made its opposition to this project clear”.

He adds that the Rec is in a conservation area: “This large modern structure clearly does great visual harm. On that basis alone it should be rejected.”

He also queries why the application is not being made by Bath Rugby but by a company called Arena 1865 Ltd: “If Bath Rugby were to fail, who would benefit from the remainder of the lease? What might then be built to replace what will then be an outdated stadium?

“What arrangements will be in place to return the space to the people of Bath, as originally intended. Remember this is the future of what was once a green recreation ground for all to share.”

Mr Loach concludes: “To quote the then Prince Charles, when speaking of another misjudged proposal, this grossly inappropriate sports arena would be like a ‘carbuncle on the face of an old friend’.

“If by some terrible error this proposed building were to be built, it would be the biggest carbuncle Bath has yet suffered.”

Pulteney Estate Residents’ Association (PERA) meanwhile, which represents over 500 residents, has employed planning experts and lodged three detailed objections to the latest stadium development proposals – a general planning one, one covering noise and a third focusing on the transport impact.

It says the 365-day-a-year use of the stadium, shift of the main entrance to William Street, periodic closure of North Parade Bridge and increase in capacity will, together, have a “massive and permanent impact” on the area and the lives of residents – and not just those who live closest to the stadium. “The resulting noise, crowds and traffic chaos will form part of our daily lives.”

PERA says there would be “extreme noise levels” from the many extra events planned: “No mitigations of these excesses are planned and the cumulative effect of such noise levels night after night – which are subject to national guidelines – has not been considered.

“Residents, both close by and further afield, will have the quiet use of their homes and gardens regularly interrupted by excessive noise spill from the new stadium.”

The residents’ association adds that the commercialisation of the West Stand, “adding bars, restaurants and party rooms for hire and conferences, will not only suck business away from the town centre but will cause 365-day-a-year nuisance to our residential area”.

Among those supporting the proposals are former Bath and England captain Phil de Glanville, who has called it a “superb and sympathetic development which will be a great asset to the city and people of Bath”.

Also in support is Bath Preservation Trust. It says it has objected to “every previous iteration of any proposal brought forward for a permanent stadium on The Rec over the last 20 years” but is now satisfied that the proposal under consideration provides “the most effective option under the circumstances and in light of the significant history of abandoned designs”.

It adds: “This development, perhaps more than any other in living memory, has provoked the most significant divergence of views and the final decision will provide ‘winners and losers’ irrespective of the outcome.”

B&NES Council is due to make a decision by early September.

This article originally appeared on The Bath Echo.