A devastated entrepreneurial couple have described how they had to ‘destroy a lot of couple’s dreams’ after shutting down their outdoor wedding event business because of a council’s concerns about a tiny medieval moat.
Katy and Joe Bird founded Hardwick Moat Weddings in Cambridgeshire, which won five-star reviews for the ‘romantic’ events it staged at its ‘beautiful venue’ in meadows once grazed by cattle.
But they have now dissolved the company and contacted shattered brides and grooms to cancel their bookings after the local planning authority complained it threatened the water feature it described as ‘potentially comparable to nationally significant scheduled monuments’.
Examples of the 20,000 scheduled monuments on the National Heritage List for England include the Cruise missile shelter at Greenham Common Airbase and Kits Coty House, a Neolithic long barrow in Kent.
Huntingdonshire District Council also claimed heavy machinery had been used on the site and that there were light, noise pollution and traffic issues – all of which Mr and Mrs Bird emphatically dispute.
They could have appealed against the decision by Huntingdonshire District Council but gave up after spending £15,000 on reports they insist proved their case.
The loss of the business has also cost £100,000 to the local economy, as they used suppliers sourced from a ten-mile radius of the venue in Tilbrook.
‘They made their minds up that they didn’t want to work with us, even though we jumped through every single hoop,’ said Mrs Bird, 37.
‘They just kept throwing something new at us, often at the last minute.
‘We’ve cancelled three bookings in 2026 and stopped taking new bookings because we were so scared we’d have to let other brides and grooms down. We’ve probably had 20 weddings we had to say no to.
‘I cancelled one wedding face to face and the other two were in phone calls. They were devastated.
‘One bride had chosen the venue two years ago. She’d already been to suppliers and had to cancel them and lose the deposits.’
The couple set up their business in 2021 after holding their own wedding that year at the four-acre site, which was used for grazing cattle until a few years earlier. More recently wheat has been grown there.
Set in rolling countryside with stunning views, they set up a marquee in one field and organised glamping in a neighbouring meadow for a memorable night under the stars for the happy couple and their guests.
Just 12 events took place each year under a temporary licence, during which a maximum of 150 people would be transported between the site and a car park by an old Ferguson tractor with a trailer on the back.
But they hadn’t realised planning permission was needed as it was on private land and were stunned when the council said the business it could affect the archaeological remains of the medieval moat, which still has water running through it, and risked ‘diluting the rural character of the area’.
In their application, Mr and Mrs Bird stated any potential impact on archaeological remains could be ‘ruled out’ as no significant ground invasive works had been undertaken.
They also commissioned a series of reports, including wildlife, light, noise and highways studies, to show it wouldn’t have a detrimental effect for the area.
The impact on the local environment was ‘minimal’, they claimed, as the marquee went up in April and was taken down in September, while bell tents in the glamping area were erected on the Friday of wedding weekends and removed on the Sunday.
Other evidence included the average wedding having 80 guests during the day and an additional 20 in the evening.
‘The proposal represents farm diversification for the landowner, providing an additional income stream to the farm, and offers substantial economic benefits to the local economy,’ the application stated.
But the council said heavy machinery had been used at the spot and works included ‘reshaping of the moat’. De-turfing to lay paths and using heavy equipment on a sensitive archaeological could have an impact, it added.
‘The proposed development would dilute the rural character of the area through the introduction of incongruous and intrusive hard edges in the countryside and weaken the visual gap between the village of Tilbrook and the rural countryside,’ it concluded.
Mother-of-five Mrs Bird, whose 38-year-old husband runs a separate events firm, denied the claims, saying: ‘The main marquee goes up on what was a ploughed field for about 100 years.
‘The moat was full of old brambles and fallen down elderflower trees which we cleared before raking the ground and hand-seeding grass. We didn’t remove any trees.’
No machinery was used on the site, she added, and the tractor operated on the opposite side of the field from the moat.
A small steel-beamed bridge over the water feature to allow people to move from the marquee to their tents was transported there in her husband’s van and put in place with the help of four men.
Mrs Bird also pointed out the site was in a dip in the land which meant it ‘couldn’t be seen’ from the nearby village and festoon LED lights were slung just 6.5ft above the ground to avoid it affecting the surround area and were used for a maximum of 48 hours every year.
‘The council never came to visit us on any occasion. I asked multiple times for people from the council to come,’ said Mrs Bird, who has now started an independent funeral director service in nearby St Neots.
She and her husband could have appealed against the latest decision but decided not to as the legal battle had drained the company’s resources.
Andrew Brodie, 73, the farmer whose land the Birds used, said he was surprised the moat had been compared to a listed monument as medieval moated farmsteads were ‘not uncommon’ as they were created to pen in cattle and provide them with water and his had even been dredged in the distant past.
He added: ‘It’s been government policy for farming to diversify. From my point of view, it’s an ideal diversification because it’s out of the way and didn’t disturb anyone. I’ve never had anyone complain to me.’
The couple were also backed by disappointed local suppliers including Dawson Nixon, who provided the bell tents through his firm Pitched Perfect Events.
He complained the council ruling was ‘an absolute travesty’ that had personally cost him £15-20,000 in turnover each year.
‘They are literally 15 minutes down the road from me and it was a pleasure working with them,’ he said.
‘The venue was amazing and they didn’t ask for any commission, while other people want 20 per cent commission. They weren’t interested – they just wanted the best local suppliers. They created a really good vibe.’
Huntingdonshire District Council were approached for a comment.