The family of Capt Sir Tom Moore are attending a hearing that will decide if they must demolish a controversial spa built in their garden. The celebrated fundraiser’s daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband are appealing against a demolition order. The spa facility was constructed on a disused tennis court.
The family used the Captain Tom Foundation charity’s name on the first plans for the building, with revised plans then turned down. The Planning Inspectorate is expected to make a decision within six weeks.
The building on the site of the family home in Marston Moretaine was originally approved for the use of the occupiers and the Captain Tom Foundation and had received planning permission in August 2021. It had been partly constructed when revised plans were submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council in February 2022, which included a spa pool, toilets and a kitchen “for private use”.
A small group of neighbours attended the meeting, with one arguing that the building was “49% bigger than what was consented”. He said it was close to his property, and was “very brutal”.
In documents submitted for the appeal, the family said the structure was “no more overbearing than the consented scheme”.
Chartered surveyor James Paynter, for the family, said the scheme had “evolved” to include the spa pool. “The spa pool has the opportunity to offer rehabilitation sessions for elderly people in the area,” he said. (1)
The inspector indicated she would make a site visit, accompanied by representatives for the appellants and for the council.
(1) Who’s he kidding? HIM has got the house and soon she expects to be in the money to fund her aspiring lifestyle. Will she want OAP’s with cozzies queueing up outside her windows for a quick dip in the pool?
When anyone builds without planning permission or exceeds the planning permission parameters, then I think the authorities should demand that the unauthorised building should be demolished, as a matter of principle.
I am sick of rogues who exceed planning conditions, then think they have any right to keep the unauthorised extension or building, after they have illegally exceeded the planning permission conditions.
In this case, the Ingram-Moore’s exceeded the permitted building footprint by another 50% - and if the rumours re “Captain Tom’s Foundation” is to be closed down are true, then does that render the whole planning application re the “spa complex” null and void?
I totally agree but, sadly, AFAIK, planning rules are continually being “softened” or withdrawn - minor “enhancements” may get a “bye” …
AFAIK, the building is nothing to do with “Captain Tom’s Foundation” - HIM just used the charity’s name as an emotional lever - the building is intended for house-occupiers only. Not only is the footprint larger but the building, which huge and ugly is built alongside Captain Tom’s house, which is Grade II-listed and at the back of a house which, previously, had an unrestricted view of trees. Adjacent houses are also affected by the blight of the building.
If that is true then not only have they exceeded the planning permissions by enlarging the building but the original planning application for the smaller “L-shaped” building was made under false pretences too because, in the original application, the Ingrams sought planning permission for a charity office which they said was “urgently required” for presentations and memorabilia.
The chartered surveyor James Paynter, for the appellants, said the scheme had “evolved” to include the spa pool.
He said: “It was felt that a larger building could provide this extra space for this extra facility going forward. The spa pool has the opportunity to offer rehabilitation sessions for elderly people in the area. They want to offer one-to-one sessions, only on a once or twice per week basis. They felt this extra limb to create a C-shape was needed to create this facility.” (1)
(1) So, a 49% extension was needed for a weekly “rehabilitation” session of unspecified length for an unspecified number of “elderly people” …
A likely story …
The barrister Scott Stemp, for the appellants, said the C-shaped building was unfinished but would have the “appearance of a subservient building”, meaning it would not overwhelm the design of the original house. He said it was up to the inspector to assess “the difference between the consented scheme and the as-built scheme”.
“Subservient”, my R’s … it rules the roost, dominating all nearby buildings:
What a shame they are using Captain Toms name like this… Rehabilitation for the elderly once or twice a week…one to one ? Don’t think so…what a shame .
Tonight I watched the Piers Morgan interview . The family said they paid for the building with their own money nothing came from the charity . If they paid for the building I’m confused why there is a problem . What have I missed ?
I get the planning permission issue but if they paid for it what are they being accused of .
The main issues regarding Hannah Ingram-Moore are:
The erection of a huge and unapproved building in the garden of her father’s house, ostensibly in the name of the Captain Tom Foundation, a charity (which may have paid for the erection) - the building is now the subject of a council demolition order which is being appealed by HIM
The allocation of funds (tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of pounds) from that charity for her personal use, activities which have attracted the interest of the Charity Commission, which has started an inquiry into the management of that charity
The claiming of proceeds (£800,000) from Captain Tom’s 3 books, meant for the charity, for her personal use
Another view of the “spa” showing just how huge an eyesore it is:
Thanks Omah . The interview was interesting and they have definately benefitted . She received 18k for attending for 1 day a ceremony and gave 2k of that to the charity while also being paid 85k a year salary pro rata .
She said her fathers books were his income and now rightly hers
They both denied using money from the charity for the building but they did name it captain Tom’s building . This bit confuses me . There is a large heated spa pool in the building which I gather they paid for not the charity. They are obviously very rich anyway
Ah , now I get it Summer , so they paid for the building but charge charity for the electricity, gas , water . I don’t believe they would allow any old member of public to wander in and have a swim in their pool either , who would !
He is a chartered accountant so very clever with money and she had a sharp clever mind so yes I can see the manipulation now . Piers didn’t let them give lip service he kept at them . I felt sorry for the adult kids .
Greedy people that’s for sure as if they don’t have enough money . The neighbours dobbed them in didn’t they re the building
The family of Capt Sir Tom Moore have lost a planning application appeal against the demolition of an unauthorised home spa in their garden. The family have three months to comply with an existing demolition order.
In a letter announcing the decision, Inspector Diane Fleming said the “scale and massing” of the partially built building had “resulted in harm” to The Old Rectory, the family home and a Grade II listed building in Marston Moretaine.
Ms Fleming, in her decision, removed the requirement for the family to restore the land to its previous condition. The family argued this was unreasonable as it would mean reinstating tennis courts, which would then be demolished to allow for an L-shaped building, which had already been approved.
The family can apply for a judicial review at the High Court within six weeks of the Inspectorate decision if they believe there has been an error in law.
She/ they have tainted the memory of Captain Tom who I’m sure did it all with good intentions . Tainted the name of charity . Many will now think twice before handing out cash in the name of charity .
How much is too much , this wealthy family and they wanted even more
A crane has been used to take apart the unauthorised spa building at the home of Captain Sir Tom Moore’s daughter.
Work first began on Tuesday at Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, to demolish the complex at the family’s property.
Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin lost an appeal in October against an order to remove the building, which included a pool, toilets and a kitchen.
Ms Ingram-Moore was on site on Friday and watched as the £200,000 development was dismantled
Just deserts . Greedy people . I feel for the adult kids they must have put up with a lot , even sat through the interview with Piers Morgan and of course they would side with their parents . Lets see what next comes to light about the charity money
