Dear Supporters,
The Hon. Mr. Justice Mould has granted permission to hear the Judicial Review case on the majority of the grounds raised and a court trial date has been set for a 1 day hearing in person on July 1, 2025 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The Judge granted permission to apply for Judicial Review on grounds 1, 2(ii), 3 and 5.
These 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.
(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 5: Failure of Duty of Inquiry/ Tameside Duty
The Judge also confirmed the case was in the public interest, of “some factual and legal complexity” and “certainly not frivolous”. He confirmed Aarhus costs protection applied.
The court case will be a critical step in protecting not only the heritage of this local grade II listed former church, but also ensuring the legal framework and duties a local authority should apply are upheld.
Local authorities are the “front line” in the protection of the nation’s heritage – bodies such as Historic England, and the various heritage amenity organisations such as The Victorian Society, rely on them to protect these one of a kind, irreplaceable assets.
We argue Runnymede Borough Council has failed in its duty to protect its local heritage and this case is crucial to ensure there is not a precedence established that weakens these protections in the wider context.
It is important to hold strong against the pressures which constantly buffet these assets – like with any erosion process, the cumulative effect is highly significant. While “planning balances” have to look at each individual case, if there is a failure to apply the legal framework, cumulatively over time the loss of the historic built environment will be very damaging.
What is the value of the historic built environment? Heritage assets with historic interest not only provide a material record of our nation's history, but also contribute to a sense of place and showcase historical craftsmanship. Surveys have shown that protecting heritage enjoys the support of the vast majority of the population and there is a wide public acceptance that we have a duty to conserve the built heritage for current and future generations.*
Historic buildings preserve distinctive local identity** – in this case the church was "an unusually complete mid C19 country church built under the provisions of the Patronage Act of 1831" and one of only two listed buildings in the Longcross area.
Now sadly, a significant number of features both internally and externally have been lost, including over 50% of the stained glass, all the remaining historic glass and all original window frames have been replaced with non-traditional, unsympathetic uPVC. Original Bath stone surrounds have been painted or plastered over. New additions have been introduced bringing harm to the heritage of the building - a large rooflight is an “incongruous addition” and the dormer window frames and siding also use uPVC which the RBC Heritage Advisor clearly articulated as inappropriate.
For these reasons, we are very pleased that our case will be given a fair hearing in a court of law.
Our case is represented by Alex Goodman KC of Landmark Chambers with Leigh Day acting as our solicitors.
Theresa Burton
Founder Friends of Christ Church Longcross
fochristchurchlongcross@gmail.com