Dear all,

Thank you to those who signed this petition and/or wrote in to object to the retrospective planning application RU.23/1639.

It was with shock and outrage that I discovered the retrospective planning application RU.23/1639 was approved without going to Planning Committee on November 19th 2024 and further that RBC decided not to take any enforcement action on the remaining Listed Building issues on December 2, 2024.

The outcome is thoroughly disappointing at the lack of protection for the heritage of this building, one of only two in the Longcross area.

We are left with a state of affairs where:

• over 50% of the original Stained Glass has been lost,
• 100% of the remaining historic glass has been removed,
• Stained Glass compositions have been moved and severed of their original context,
• despite no materials condition approving the use of uPVC, all window frames and dormer siding are of this non-traditional material contrary to Historic England guidance,
• and historic bath stone surrounds have been plastered over.

The two main reasons for bringing this claim are:

(i)        The protection of the heritage of this former church building for the benefit of the local community, its setting within the curtilage of the listed Lychgate and Churchyard Wall and the wider Longcross area, as one of only two listed buildings which would be within the boundary of the Longcross Garden Village.

but also importantly:

(ii)        The wider public benefit in testing the law around planning permissions for Listed Buildings. The Applicant's Agent presented an argument to the LPA that unless the Listed Building Planning Permission explicitly protects an element of the listed heritage asset, e.g via a planning condition, the Applicant does not have to apply for Listed Building Consent even to alter and replace stained glass windows on a listed church with uPVC alternatives (and the LPA has accepted this without challenge).

This is a critical test case of the law and one which is of relevance to the protection of heritage assets across the country and the precedent it would set.

The Judicial Review Claim

The Judicial Review claim was sealed at court on December 23, 2024 and served on the defendant (Runnymede Borough Council) and interested parties on December 24, 2024. The next step is the formal court response from RBC due in a few weeks and after that a Judge will determine if the case will be heard in court.

The Judicial Review claim is assisted by counsel Alex Goodman KC of Landmark Chambers and Leigh Day solicitors. Alex Goodman KC is ranked in Legal 500 (2024) in tier 1 for all his core areas including planning and recently led the successful appeal about open space in the Supreme Court in Day v Shropshire. Leigh Day is a law firm established to combat injustice. Championing the underdog, the firm stands against entities and their wrong doings.

The proposed claim for Judicial Review challenges:

a.        the decision of Runnymede Borough Council (“the Council”) not to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised demolition and alteration of parts of a listed building, principally unauthorised works for demolition and alteration, including the loss of around half of the stained glass windows; all of the rest of the historic glass, the loss of frames (replacing over half with uPVC frames and modern glass); the installation of a rooflight; and the use of unauthorised materials on new dormer windows in the grade II listed Christ Church, Longcross (as crystallised in the “Enforcement Report” dated 2 December 2024); and

b.        the Council’s decision to grant listed building consent dated 19 November 2024 in respect of the installation of vents to the (new, unauthorised) front windows and alterations to the shape of dormer windows.

The claim seeks:

(1)        A declaration that the Defendant’s 2 December 2024 Enforcement Report and the closure of the enforcement matter under Case Reference 22E00102 in respect of the2 Grade II listed former Christ Church, Longcross Road, Chertsey, Surrey (“the Enforcement Report”) are premised on an error or errors of law and/or

(2)        A mandatory order requiring Runnymede Borough Council (“the Council”) to reconsider enforcement pursuant to section 38 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“PLBCAA 1990”) in respect of unlawful development/breaches of listed building control at Christ Church, Longcross Road, Chertsey, KT16 0DU and/or

(3)        An order quashing the grant of listed building consent by the Council dated 19 November 2024 (RU.23/1639) for the alteration of a window above the front entrance porch to allow for smoke vents and for alterations to the shape of the dormers permitted under RU.19/0695.

The Grounds of the claim are:

Ground 1: Failure to have regard to material considerations in deciding not to take enforcement action pursuant to s.38

(a)    Failure to understand the statutory scheme for listed building control

(b)    Failure to address considerations material to assessing the unauthorised works

(c)    The Scope of the Listed Building Consent

(d)    Flawed Understanding of the Policy Framework

Ground 2: Listed Building Consent 19 November 2024, Failure to consult properly and to take into account the product of the consultation.

(i)        Failure to Consult Properly

(ii)        Failure to take proper account of Built Heritage Advice

Ground 3: Failure to Comply with Duty in Section 16(2) PLBCAA 1990 in Granting Listed Building Consent

Ground 4: Enforcement Report 2 December 2024 - reconsider if Listed Building Consent quashed

Ground 5: Failure of Duty of Inquiry/ Tameside Duty

Theresa Burton

Founder Friends of Christ Church Longcross

fochristchurchlongcross@gmail.com