The reconsidered Enforcement Report, together with the supporting Heritage Advice, unambiguously finds that the Listed Building harms identified in the Place Services Report of July 1, 2025 are unauthorised, unlawful and thus enforceable.

The professional heritage advice of Place Services, the council’s heritage advisor, finds the cumulative impact of the harms of the unauthorised works to be very significant (of the “very highest end of the scale”) and recommends a series of remedies to mitigate those harms, including restoration and replacement with like for like materials where restoration is not possible.

The reconsidered Enforcement Report recommends to the Planning Committee that the developer is given four months to agree with the council and Place Services a package of remedial works which will be submitted for Listed Building Consent and that the application should come to the Planning Committee for determination.

If the developer is not forthcoming with a listed building application, or that application is rejected, the enforcement matter will return to the Planning Committee for further consideration with a view to potentially issuing a Listed Building Enforcement Notice(s). Importantly, there is no time limit on serving a notice for works to a listed building and so the council can return to this option with no disadvantage at any point in the future.

The Planning Committee meeting is being held tomorrow, at 7pm. The full report and agenda can be found here, as well as the link to the webcast which will be live:

https://democracy.runnymede.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=153&MId=1243

The Place Services Heritage Advice has found a litany of harms to this historic asset:

Stained Glass and Historic Windows

-              that the works to the windows go far beyond the approved scope,

-              that the loss of traditional windows from historic buildings poses one of the biggest threats to built heritage,

-              that traditional windows and their glazing, particularly to historic churches, make an important contribution to an asset’s significance,

-              that the pre-existing windows comprised metal frames containing leaded light windows and stained glass including original grisaille glass were of special architectural and artistic interest and made a considerable contribution to the significance of the designated heritage asset,

-              that they were an integral part of the design of the church and were important works of art in their own right; crafted with great skill and ingenuity with materials of a high quality,

-              that the works to the windows include the wholesale loss of original window frames and leaded light windows, the partial loss of original stained glass, and the severing of stained-glass compositions,

-              that several of the stained-glass lights have been deconstructed and have not been reinstated in their original locations,

-              that the works to the windows are contrary to guidance, best practice and core conservation principles,

-              that the insertion of the smoke vents has resulted in the loss of historic fabric and has an adverse visual impact on the window and the principle elevation,

Framing

-              that the reframing of stained glass within triple-glazed units is inappropriate,

-              that the use of unsympathetic uPVC frames have distinctly visual and operational differences that detract from the historic asset’s significance,

-              that the design, detailing, and operation of the uPVC windows mean that they look notably different to traditional windows and the use of this inappropriate and unsympathetic non-traditional material lacks authenticity and integrity,

-              that the new dormer windows use the non-traditional uPVC material and this is inappropriate and unsympathetic, having an adverse visual impact on the designated heritage asset as it lacks in the quality and craftsmanship found in traditional materials and construction,

Stone Dressings and Mouldings

-              that many of the stone dressings to the hood mouldings have been damaged, deconstructed, rendered, or removed as part of this process,

-              that adverse impacts arise from the rendered and painted window surrounds and hood, mouldings which have covered the historic Bath stone dressings, detracting from the building’s architectural interest,

Vestry Door

-              unsympathetic repairs to the Vestry Door, using softwood in components unlike the original oak, profile changes to the architrave, the door poorly fixed to the frame, and the use of expanding foam which is not an appropriate material for historic buildings,

Rooflight for Flat 5

-              that the rooflight is an incongruous addition to the building topology that detracts from the architectural and historic interest of the asset and should be removed as it is a distinctly domestic feature.

We will post an update from the Planning Committee shortly after the meeting concludes with the conclusion of the debate and determination.