For posterity's sake...
The house was sold by the St Clere Estate some time in the past. The story/timelines aren't clear but possibly the late 80's to late 90's, when something of a selling spree was said to occur. So the story goes, the gent who bought it from St Clere was an architect, and ostensibly made extensions/additions/modifications to the property that made it "unviable to refurbish".
The house was subsequently purchased back by the St Clere Estate and it is the current trustee that is named on the planning application for the demolishment of the property.
There were few objections to the planning application, which may be why it didn't get much attention from planning. Interestingly, an application to demolish the Old Terry's Lodge was refused in August 1972. To the 2022 application, a conservation officer gave a (weak) objection, but no site visit was carried out so it's obvious why the powers that be wouldn't give this much weight.
If you are inclined to notice or care about these things, a walk of the St Clere estate would evidence that it might not be unfair to suggest they do not put much weight behind the importance of the detail of the historic properties under their custodianship. Planning applications back to the 90's specify material requirements for extensions and alterations that were not satisfied. PVC replacements for historic timber windows and loss of locally defining features such as arched flush casement windows have been completely lost and replaced with ill fitting and poorly installed uPVC units over the past two decades. You can see some of the progressive loss on google street view "see more dates".
The decision to demolish then would not be a surprise - a quick look at planning portal tells they fought multiple objections to be granted permission to demolish another, listed, building on the Estate - ultimately succeeding. Interestingly again, one of the primary arguments for needing permission to demolish the building did not come to fruition. Retrospective enforcement is, as is proved time and time again, largely toothless...
Ultimately, there is the argument that it is their land, their buildings, and who should have the right to tell someone what they can or can't do with something their Great-Great-Great forefather built? And in the interest of fairness, they are certainly not the only organisation to be pursuing the same path in that part of the world.
Sad, nonetheless.
