Captain Sir Tom Moore's family appealing council order to demolish Bedfordshire spa pool complex

The Bedfordshire home of Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin where they built a spa pool, which Central Bedfordshire Council wants removed. Credit: PA
The Bedfordshire home of Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin where they built a spa pool block, which Central Bedfordshire Council wants removed. Credit: PA

The family of Captain Sir Tom Moore are appealing a council order to tear down an unauthorised spa pool complex built at their home.

Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin applied in 2021 for permission to build a Captain Tom Foundation Building on their grounds in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire.

The L-shaped building was given the green light, but the Central Bedfordshire Council refused a subsequent retrospective application in 2022 for a larger C-shaped building containing a spa pool, built last year.

Sir Tom became a well-known figure when he raised £38.9m for NHS Charities Together by walking 100 laps of his garden before his 100th birthday at the height of the first national Covid-19 lockdown in April 2020.

He died in February 2021.

Captain Sir Tom Moore who died in 2021. Credit: Danny Lawson/PA

The council issued an enforcement notice in July 2023, demanding the demolition of the “now-unauthorised building”.

But Sir Tom's family appealed the order and a one-day hearing by the Planning Inspectorate is due to be heard at Central Bedfordshire Council on Tuesday 17 October.

The written decision will be published in four to six weeks' time.

A document supporting the initial planning application for an L-shaped building said it was to be used partly "in connection with The Captain Tom Foundation and its charitable objectives".

Hannah Ingram-Moore, daughter of Captain Sir Tom Moore. Credit: PA Wire/PA Images

Papers appealing against the demolition notice, the family said the the C-shaped building containing a spa pool it was “no more overbearing” than the approved plans.

The appeal statement by Mr Ingram-Moore said: "The view is virtually identical save for a pitch roof being added to the elevational treatment.

"The heights are the same.

"As such there cannot be an unacceptable overbearing impact."

It also claimed the council had "no grounds supporting the refusal of the retrospective application", "requested" for the inspector to uphold the appeal and the building was set at the back of the site so in private view.

The council said its reports "detail harm caused to the setting of the listed building and, in particular, the significant difference between the two schemes that arises from the lack of sufficient public benefit that has been proposed in respect of the unauthorised building".

It added the demolition work needed at the Ingram-Moore's home was not "excessive" and the "size and scale of the unauthorised building" had an adverse impact on their neighbours.


Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know