Why must the 'Captain Tom Foundation' building be demolished?

The original planning permission - GRANTED

In August 2021, the family submitted an application to Central Bedfordshire Council for planning permission to construct an L-shaped single-storey building on the tennis court of their property. It was referred to as the 'Captain Tom Foundation Building'.

The family originally told the Council that this building was "urgently needed" for the operation of the Captain Tom Foundation and to store memorabilia including "225,000 birthday cards, clothing, medals and his fitness bike".

The planning permission was approved for the use of the occupiers and 'in connection with the Captain Tom Foundation and its charitable objectives'.

The Council noted that the 'public good' of the proposed building 'outweighed harm'. 

The retrospective planning permission - REFUSED

Six months later, it was brought to the Council's attention that the substantially-erected building did not accord with the planning permission that had been granted.

The family submitted revised plans for retrospective planning permission. These included a C-shaped building named the "Captain Tom Foundation Building" with the additions of "a spa pool, toilets and a kitchen" for private use. The plans were 1.5m higher than the surrounding bungalows.

The revised plans received 23 responses from neighbours, of which 19 were objections. One neighbour commented that the building "is ugly, far too large for the site and really out of character and scale for its location".

After careful consideration, the Council rejected the family's new planning permission and a demolition order was issued in November 2022.

The Council's reasons for refusal were as follows:

• The outbuilding "would result in unacceptable harm by virtue of size, design and siting within the curtilage of a Listed Building and would lead to an overdevelopment of the site comprising an unsympathetic and dominating structure that fails to represent the informal open character of the site and lacks the due subservience"
• The outbuilding is "out of keeping with the character of the area and disproportionate to the scale of the existing dwellinghouse, and will result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on adjoining residential occupiers"

• Whether or not the building was being used for charitable purposes was not addressed in the Council's reasons for refusal

The appeal

The family appealed the Council's decision to the Planning Inspectorate and a hearing took place in October 2023.

The family were entitled to appeal the decision if any of the following applied:

• The reasons for refusal go against the LPA’s development plan or planning policy (which they believed to be the case here)
• The planning permission contains conditions they objected to
• Eight weeks have passed since the date the LPA received it

To win the appeal, the family would need to prove that the public benefit of the building was greater than the harm to the surrounding area.

The family stated that "the building could be used for rehabilitation sessions for elderly people, monthly coffee mornings, views of the gardens and space to make podcasts". They did not provide any evidence of how this would work in practice.

The Planning Inspectorate's decision - APPEAL DISMISSED

The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council's decision to reject the retrospective planning permission application. 

The Inspector found that the size of the unauthorised building 'resulted in harm' to the area. She also noted that "the suggested public benefit would therefore not outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the heritage asset."

The Council were pleased that the Inspector agreed that "the proposed use of the building was not justified" and upheld their "duty to protect the appearance and setting of heritage assets".

What's next?

• It was ordered that the family had three months to comply with the demolition order issued in November 2022, despite their request for 12 months to source appropriate contractors. The requirement to restore the land to tennis courts has been removed.
• If the family considered that there had been an error in law in the Inspector's decision, they had six weeks from the date of the Inspector's decision to apply for a judicial review at the High Court. That period has passed and no application for judicial review was made, so the building will need to be demolished.

Our Planning team can provide advice on the content and limitations of current planning permissions and planning appeals. We can also advise on planning enforcement matters and planning obligations. For more information, please contact Bethan Sykes on 07468 698 941, or complete the form below.