The family of Sir Captain Tom Moore have lost their appeal against the demolition of an unauthorised spa at their Marston Moretaine home.
An appeal was launched by Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband to the national Planning Inspectorate against the demolition order by Central Bedfordshire Council, stating that the building "would enable Captain Tom's story to be enjoyed by the public".
The family also said that it could also be used for coffee mornings and spa rehabilitation sessions.
The inspector has now rejected the appeal, stating that it was "at odds" with the couple's home.
The family home is grade II listed.
Sir Captain Tom Moore shot to fame by doing sponsored laps of his garden during the COVID pandemic and the charity in his name is now being investigated by the Charity Commission.
Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband were originally granted permission to build a Captain Tom Foundation Building on the grounds of their £1.2m home in Marston Moretaine, just outside of Milton Keynes, with plans due to be used partly 'in connection' with The Captain Tom Foundation.
An application for a larger building with a spa pool was refused afterwards.
Central Bedfordshire Council planning bosses enforced a notice requiring the demolition of the "now-unauthorised building" in March.
The family appealed the ruling stating that the building was "no more overbearing" than originally planned.
"I find the erection of the new building erodes the positive contribution that the setting, provided by the extensive grounds, makes to the [main property]," the inspector, Diane Fleming, found.
However, she found that the building had not caused "unacceptable harm" to the wider neighbourhood, as it was largely out of view from the property's grounds.
Ms Fleming also addressed a suggestion, put forward on behalf of the family at the appeal, that the new building would enable "Captain Tom's story to be enjoyed by the public" and be "supported by the appellant's personal charity work".
This included the suggestion of opening up the spa pool for rehabilitation sessions for elderly people in the area once or twice a week.
"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," she said in her ruling.
The family must comply with the order within three months.
