The family of the late Captain Tom has lost an appeal against the demolition of a building featuring a spa pool.
According to documents published this week, Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband David Colin Ingram-Moore successfully applied to build “a detached flat roof building” to be used as “home office space incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling together with charitable uses in connection with the Captain Tom Foundation” in 2021.
Work on the construction of the building began in December 2021 but Central Bedfordshire Council discovered in January 2022 that it was not in accordance with the original planning permission.
In March last year, Maytrix Group Ltd, a company under the joint control of Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore, made a retrospective application to retain the building as built, which the council refused and issued an enforcement notice to demolish the site.
Colin Ingram-Moore appealed the decision, and reportedly argued at the recent hearing that “the new building would enable Captain Tom’s story to be enjoyed by the public and be supported by [Colin Ingram-Moore’s] personal charity work”.
However, inspector Diane Fleming said that while the “appellant’s intentions are laudable [...] it hasn’t been demonstrated in any detail how all of this would work in practice”, and dismissed the appeal.
Public benefit doesn’t outweigh harm to the heritage asset
The appellant reportedly argued that the building, especially the spa pool, could “offer rehabilitation sessions to elderly people in the area once or twice a week while the public could view a selection of the memorabilia held by the family”.
He said the building could be used “for coffee mornings to combat loneliness as well as to host meetings with other charities who work in the elderly persons’ sector and to make podcasts/films”.
Fleming wrote in her report: “Essentially, the appellant’s view is that the building provides an opportunity for Captain Tom’s family to take his legacy forward and that they have a responsibility to continue the conversation about elderly people and loneliness.
“I accept that the appellant’s intentions are laudable however, it has not been demonstrated in any detail how all of this would work in practice. In the absence of any substantiated information, I find the suggested public benefit would therefore not outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the heritage asset.”
Building has resulted in harm to the Old Rectory
Fleming said that the new building, which is sited on a former tennis court next to the Old Rectory, a grade II listed building, is “disproportionately broad” and “at odds with the pleasingly domestic scale of the Old Rectory, which is not a grand building in terms of its design and style”.
“I find the resulting form of the building is not subservient to the Old Rectory, notwithstanding its height. It competes for and distracts attention from the listed building when viewed from the terrace and the approach to the terrace, unlike the Coach House [a detached outbuilding in the grounds of the Old Rectory].”
She concluded that “the scale and massing of the building has resulted in harm to the Old Rectory, “which I find suggested conditions would not overcome” and that the appeal failed on this ground.
Related articles
