Captain Sir Tom Moore’s family defend unauthorised ‘eyesore’ home spa

Hannah Ingram-Moore with Captain Sir Tom Moore (Image: Getty) Captain Sir Tom Moore’s family has defended the construction of an unauthorised home spa that has been ordered to be demolished. Hannah Ingram-Moore, Capt Sir Tom’s fundraising daughter and her husband attached the Captain Tom Foundation name on the plans for the first building, which was permitted. However, revised plans submitted by the family in February 2022 were rejected for the building, which was already partially built. The order to demolish the building is subject to an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Captain Tom shot to prominence by walking laps of his garden to raise money for the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic. Captain Tom Foundation has stopped taking money from donors after planning chiefs ordered that the u (Image: PA) The family of the veteran, who died in 2021 at the age of 100, set up a charity in his name after he became a national treasure. The original plans for the building, which was to be one-storey built on top of the tennis courts at the Ingram-Moore’s Grade II-listed property, were for it to be called the ‘Captain Tom Foundation Building’ and it was to be ‘for use by occupiers and Captain Tom Foundation’, according to documents submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) in August 2021. However the reworked plans saw the building’s name change to the Captain Tom Building, omitting reference to the Foundation. The new plans included a spa pool, toilets and a kitchen, which the Design & Access and Heritage Statement said was “for private use”. Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin dispute the demolition order (Image: Getty) Central Bedfordshire Council refused the retrospective planning permission for the reworked plans and residents that overlooked the building branded it an ‘eyesore’. Colin Ingram-Moore, in documents submitted to the Planning Inspectorate during the appeal, 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.’ Mr Ingram-Moore maintained that there were ‘no grounds supporting the refusal of the retrospective application’. The council’s legal papers state that they believe there are “significant differences” between the approved and constructed buildings and that the authority “does not consider that the requirement to demolish the building is excessive”. It also noted that the council believed “that the size and scale of the unauthorised building have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings”. It added that reports spell out “the 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”. A date for the Planning Inspectorate appeal hearing has not yet been set.