Captain Tom's family ordered to demolish £200,000 luxury spa at Bedfordshire home

The daughter of the fundraising veteran Captain Tom has been ordered to demolish the luxury spa complex she and her husband built in their garden.

Hannah Ingram-Moore, 53, and her husband Colin, 66, lost an appeal against Central Bedfordshire Council and have been ordered to take down the £200,000 sauna and spa.

The Ingram-Moores were given permission by the council to erect a “Captain Tom Foundation Building” in the garden where he raised nearly £39m for NHS charities by walking 100 laps before his 100th birthday.

It was believed it would be a community space to store thousands of cards and gifts sent by admirers but the finished building included a sauna and spa.

After Central Bedfordshire Council issued an enforcement notice in July requiring the demolition of the “unauthorised building”, the Planning Inspectorate has now dismissed the family’s appeal.

Captain Sir Tom Moore raised millions by walking around his garden during the first Covid lockdown in the spring of 2020 at the family home in the village of Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire. He became internationally recognised and was knighted by the Queen.

He died in February 2021 with Covid at the age of 100.

Six months later, Central Bedfordshire Council, agreed to allow a building on an old tennis court at their manor home, The Old Rectory.

But neighbours were angered when a larger, luxury spa with a pool and sauna appeared.

Neighbour Barry Shaw said the C-shaped building that overlooks his home in Woburn Road is 49% bigger than the L-shaped building that was granted permission.

He said: “The consent given was five metres from our property. Now it is 2.9 metres away. Why has it been so much closer to our fence? The building is 49% bigger.”

Mr Shaw said the new building was also 450% bigger than the average houses in Banks Close, where there are pensioners’ bungalows.

He went on: “We are particularly frustrated that the whole area of the property (The Old Rectory) is 14,500 sq metres and they chose to build it directly at the bottom of our gardens.“

Council planners say they new building was not what was intended and had ordered the couple to pull it down, issuing  a “now unauthorised building” notice.

Richard Procter, the planning enforcement officer at Central Bedfordshire Council said the original building was approved because of the balance of public benefit outweighed the harm.

He went on: “The scheme was for storing the cards. There has been no information given to the council about the use of the spa.“

Scott Stemp, the barrister representing the Ingram-Moore family said the old tennis court had fallen in disrepair. He said the intention had to be store a selection of memorabilia and associated items - not to store all the memorabilia.

He said the building was unfinished and had not been clad as work stopped because of the council’s enforcement order.

Planning inspector Diane Fleming visited the spa building and the neighbouring properties during the one-day hearing in October, and took several weeks to issue her decision.

In documents appealing against the notice, the family said the building was "no more overbearing" than a previously approved planning application and the "heights are the same".The appeal statement by Colin 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."

The couple used the name of the Captain Tom Foundation when the plans were first lodged. Permission to go ahead was granted in August 2021, but the charity said it had no knowledge of the proposal.

They say the building, which is estimated to have cost £200,000, was paid for with their own money.

The couple have three months to demolish the building, and six weeks to lodge a further appeal.

Mary Walsh, CBC's executive member for planning and development, said: “Naturally, we are pleased that the planning inspector has dismissed this appeal and upheld the council’s requirement that the building is demolished. 

"We have a duty to protect the appearance and setting of heritage assets such as the Old Rectory and our decision making is guided by national and local policies. 

"In this case, the inspector agreed with the council that the proposed use of the building was not justified and that, by virtue of its size and appearance, caused sufficient harm to warrant its removal."

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