Planning chiefs have ordered Captain Tom’s daughter to demolish an unauthorized building after plans for a pool complex were rejected.
Hannah Ingram-Moore, 52, and her husband Colin told planners they wanted to set up an office for the charity in their father’s name at their £1.2million Bedfordshire home.
Instead, they built a 50-by-20-foot pool house with changing rooms, restrooms, and showers.
Plans for the L-shaped building at the seven-bed villa in Marston Moretaine were given the go-ahead in 2021.
They had applied for planning permission in their own name – but used the foundation’s name in the design, access and heritage declaration, The Sun revealed on Tuesday.
The statement described how the building would be used in part “in connection with the Captain Tom Foundation and its charitable purposes.”
A later retrospective application in 2022 for a larger C-shaped building with a spa pool was rejected by the planning authority.
Documents described it as “a new building for residents’ use” of Hannah and Colin’s home.
It was referred to as “The Captain Tom Building” in a Design, Access and Monument Statement.
Captain Tom lifted spirits during the Corona crisis by strolling through his garden in the run-up to his 100th birthday.
He raised nearly £39million for the NHS.
He was knighted, honored with an RAF flypast and received 225,000 100th birthday cards.
He died in February 2021.
In August this year, the couple said the space was “much needed” for presentations and memorabilia.
A spokesman for Central Bedfordshire Council confirmed the order to demolish the building, saying: “An enforcement order has been issued mandating the demolition of the now unlicensed building.”
“And this can now be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.”
The trustees of the Captain Tom charity told The Sun: “The independent trustees of the Captain Tom Foundation were at no time aware of the building permits which Mr. and Mrs. Ingram-Moore had allegedly granted on behalf of the foundation.
“Had they been aware of any applications, the independent trustees would not have approved them.”