Dear Supporters, 

Thank you for supporting our recent appeal to object to the retrospective application for the insertion of floor plates and use of thick white uPVC frames at Christ Church Longcross which significantly harms the heritage of this Grade II listed building and its stained glass windows. 

If you haven't yet, you can still send in your comments as the application has yet to reach the stage for the Planning Committee and the more written objections received, the stronger the case to the Committee: 

Please email your objection to: 

planning@runnymede.gov.uk

reference:

RU.23/1639 Christ Church Longcross

You will need to include the reasons for your objection and your full name and postal address however your name and address will be redacted online. Thank you!

Recently analysed data from a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Planning Inspector clearly shows the overwhelming majority of appeals to use uPVC frames in Grade II listed buildings are dismissed. 

Over the 10 years of the data provided, only 1 out of a total of 49 relevant cases was the appeal allowed - 98% of all appeals to use uPVC were rejected.

Indeed, Historic England guidance cleary advocates against the use of uPVC.

In the one case "Allowed", the uPVC windows were allowed where previous harm in the 1930s had already created a "hotchpotch of styles that do not reflect the historic significance of the heritage asset", so not a direct comparison to the case of Christ Church Longcross in which the windows were preserved until the very recent development.

As commented by heritage experts, other more suitable methods of framing are possible and many Grade II listed former church buildings which have been converted to residential use illustrate this. 

Here are some of the reasons Planning Inspectors rejected the use of uPVC in heritage buildings: 

“I am not persuaded that similar benefits could not be achieved by a proposal that would be less harmful to the significance of the designated heritage asset.”

“the proposal would have a harmful visual impact on the special interest of the listed terrace. It would also introduce a modern material to the appeal building’s principal façade, which would be entirely at odds with its traditional material palette.”

“synthetic material, comprised of a thick frame, would appear as obviously standardised, unfaithful, and uncharacteristic”

“listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether there are views of the building from the public realm.”

“The replacement windows are most inappropriate in terms of their design and materials. The mock sash and case UPVC windows have resulted in a crude and unbalanced appearance and have detracted markedly from the late Georgian and early Victorian character and appearance of the building.”

“they are clearly plastic and have an artificial sheen that detracts from the quality of the conversion. Listed buildings are a tiny proportion of the overall stock of buildings in the country and their listing gives them special protection.”

“While the proportions of the openings would be retained, the use of UPVC would be inappropriate as it is a modern material which would not have been in use traditionally. The windows would stand out as a non- sympathetic alteration due to the texture and appearance of the UPVC frames and the thickness and profile of the glazing bars.”

“listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether public views of the building can be gained. The alteration may seem relatively minor, but such changes would be harmful to the historic character of the building as UPVC is a non-traditional material.”

Thank you very much for your support.

fochristchurchlongcross@gmail.com