Wed. Nov 6th, 2024
alert-–-captain-tom’s-family’s-unauthorised-200k-spa-pool-at-their-1.2m-home-will-be-demolished-after-they-failed-to-submit-an-appeal-before-deadline-passedAlert – Captain Tom’s family’s unauthorised £200K spa pool at their £1.2m home WILL be demolished after they failed to submit an appeal before deadline passed

Captain Tom’s family’s unauthorised £200,000 spa will be demolished after they failed to meet the deadline for a High Court appeal. 

Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin applied in 2021 for permission to build a Captain Tom Foundation Building in the grounds of their £1.2million home in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire.

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

Officials served an enforcement notice requiring the spa to be knocked down, but the family appealed and a hearing was held in October. 

The Planning Inspectorate rejected the appeal last month and said the family had six weeks if they wanted to apply for a judicial review. The authority today confirmed to The Independent the family did not submit an appeal before the deadline passed. 

Captain Sir Tom Moore and his daughter Hannah in 2020 after he completed 100 laps of his garden during lockdown, raising millions for the NHS

Captain Sir Tom Moore and his daughter Hannah in 2020 after he completed 100 laps of his garden during lockdown, raising millions for the NHS

The C-shaped £200,000 complex will be demolished

The C-shaped £200,000 complex will be demolished

The luxury spa pool was not part of the original plans for the building, and a bid to have it approved retrospectively was denied

The luxury spa pool was not part of the original plans for the building, and a bid to have it approved retrospectively was denied 

At a Planning Inspectorate hearing in October, Ms Ingram-Moore insisted that the unauthorised spa was intended for regular rehab sessions and coffee mornings for local elderly people – not the family’s benefit.

READ MORE – Captain Tom’s daughter claims her family wanted to keep their spa to help local elderly 

The planning application for the annexe indicated it would be used as office space for the Captain Tom Foundation.

It was also believed it would be a community space to store thousands of cards and gifts sent by admirers.

The C-shaped building was given the green light by Central Bedfordshire Council, but the planning authority refused a subsequent retrospective application in 2022 for a larger building containing a spa pool, toilets and a kitchen ‘for private use’.

The extension was called the Captain Tom Building in the plans, but it soon became apparent that the structure taking shape bore little resemblance to the one that had been sanctioned.

Following complaints from locals, a site visit was undertaken in March 2022, but the planning officer reported that the ‘windows were covered and access to the inside of the building was not possible’.

The council insists that the C-shaped building, that was built on a tennis court, was 49 per cent larger than what had been approved and must be demolished. 

This spa complex, built in the grounds of the home of Captain Tom's daughter and husband, is at the centre of a planning row after the local council said it was unauthorised

This spa complex, built in the grounds of the home of Captain Tom’s daughter and husband, is at the centre of a planning row after the local council said it was unauthorised

Hannah Ingram-Moore, 53, was accused of using the charity set up in her father's name to add a spa pool complex to an illegal extension at the Grade II-listed family home

Hannah Ingram-Moore, 53, was accused of using the charity set up in her father’s name to add a spa pool complex to an illegal extension at the Grade II-listed family home

The appeal statement by Mr Ingram-Moore said: ‘The subject building is no more overbearing than the consented scheme.

‘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 said the council had ‘no grounds supporting the refusal of the retrospective application’ and ‘requested’ for the inspector to uphold the appeal.

READ MORE – JAN MOIR: Captain Sir Tom Moore’s legacy is more soured with every passing day 

The document also notes that the building is set at the back of the site, meaning it is not an issue for public 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’.

Documents from the local government body also state that the demolition requirement is not ‘excessive’ and the ‘size and scale of the unauthorised building’ has an adverse impact on the Ingram-Moore’s neighbours.

Fundraising hero Captain Sir Tom Moore walked 100 laps of his garden before his milestone birthday, raising million of pounds for the NHS, and quickly became a global sensation symbolising hope during the pandemic. 

Sir Tom was knighted and honoured with an RAF Flypast before his death in February 2021, after being admitted to hospital with coronavirus.

Ms Ingram-Moore, a recruitment officer, previously revealed the fundraising idea to walk 100 laps came about after her husband Colin challenged his father-in-law to do the feat.

She revealed how her father had a fall in their kitchen at the end of 2018 and had bought himself a treadmill to rehabilitate after he fractured his hip.

The Ingram-Moores said the plan was never for the building housing the spa pool to be 'The Captain Tom Foundation' building - but a planning statement explicitly referred to the building as such, and stated it was to be used for 'charitable objectives'

The Ingram-Moores said the plan was never for the building housing the spa pool to be ‘The Captain Tom Foundation’ building – but a planning statement explicitly referred to the building as such, and stated it was to be used for ‘charitable objectives’

In August 2021, Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore sought planning permission for a charity office which they said was 'urgently required' for presentations and memorabilia

In August 2021, Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore sought planning permission for a charity office which they said was ‘urgently required’ for presentations and memorabilia

The building was given the green light, but a retrospective application for the spa complex (pictured) made under their own name was refused last year - meaning that they face having to tear that down

The building was given the green light, but a retrospective application for the spa complex (pictured) made under their own name was refused last year – meaning that they face having to tear that down

The design and access and heritage statement document states that usage of the building is 'in connection with The Captain Tom Foundation'. The address is redacted in red

The design and access and heritage statement document states that usage of the building is ‘in connection with The Captain Tom Foundation’. The address is redacted in red

This planning document references the retrospective application for the spa complex

This planning document references the retrospective application for the spa complex

It has emerged that angry neighbours lodged formal objections to the ‘ugly’ building and set up a petition, which received around 100 signatures

The veteran came out with his walker one lockdown weekend and her husband, Colin, said: ‘Carry on walking, Tom, we’ll give you a pound a lap. Do 100 by your 100th birthday.’

The Captain Tom Foundation was registered on June 5, 2020 following his fundraising efforts.

READ MORE: So who did pay for the pool and spa in Captain Tom’s garden – which his daughter’s been told to tear down? 

But the charity stopped taking donations as the Charity Commission launched a statutory inquiry into the foundation last year over decisions that ‘may have generated a significant profit’ for a company run by Ms Ingame-Moore and her husband.

Documents show the original application was made in the name of the foundation but the ‘design and access statement for heritage assets’ – needed for listed buildings – added the office was required ‘in connection with The Captain Tom Foundation and its charitable objectives’. 

But the charity issued a stern statement saying it had no knowledge of being referred to in the application.

It added: ‘Had they been aware of any applications, the independent trustees would not have authorised them.’

The amount of cash raked in by Captain Moore’s family off the back of his £39million fundraising legacy was laid bare in October- amid growing calls for them to give it back. 

Accounts for the The Captain Tom Foundation showed that Ms Ingram-Moore earned a salary £63,750 until last year and was paid expenses of £7,602. 

Sir Tom was made an honorary colonel and was later knighted by the Queen (pictured in 2020) at Windsor Castle

Sir Tom was made an honorary colonel and was later knighted by the Queen (pictured in 2020) at Windsor Castle

Captain Sir Tom Moore raised £38 million for NHS Charities Together in the run up to his 100th birthday during the first lockdown in 2020. He died the following year

Captain Sir Tom Moore raised £38 million for NHS Charities Together in the run up to his 100th birthday during the first lockdown in 2020. He died the following year

Captain Sir Tom Moore went on to write three books under a deal with Penguin Random House that has earned his family more than £800,000

Captain Sir Tom Moore went on to write three books under a deal with Penguin Random House that has earned his family more than £800,000

At the same time, the charity’s income for 18 months was less than half the figure for the previous 12 months. It went from £1.096,526 in 12 months to the end of May 2021 to £402,854 in the 18 months from June 2021 to November last year. 

Richard Procter, the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer at Central Beds 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. ‘

 has approached Ms Ingram-Moore for a comment. 

error: Content is protected !!