Since our last update in January, when we reported that the developer had failed to meet the Planning Committee's deadline, the developer has now submitted a retrospective Listed Building Consent Application (RU.26/0173) to Runnymede Borough Council to retain the heritage harms introduced to the building - such as the loss of the stained glass, the loss of the leaded light historic windows and retaining the uPVC framing.

The deadline for public objections is Wednesday 18 March 2026. We need your voice — now more than ever.

How to object:

Submit your objection directly to Runnymede Borough Council, referencing application RU.26/0173, via the planning portal using this link before 18 March 2026.

You can keep it brief — even a short, personal objection carries weight. Tell the Council:

• This application fails to address the heritage harm identified by Place Services
• The claim that uPVC is the only viable solution is not credible
• The loss of historic glass and the introduction of fake leaded-lights must be addressed
• Like-for-like restoration using traditional materials must be required

What the application claims — and why we reject it

Rather than accepting the findings of Place Services, the Council's own Heritage Advisor — who concluded the unauthorized works caused harm at the "very highest end of the scale" — the application adopts a strategy of minimisation and deflection.

Most seriously, the developer claims that uPVC window frames were the only "viable" solution. This claim is directly contradicted by established heritage construction practice and is refuted in detail in the formal objection being submitted. In summary:

• Traditional timber (specifically high-stability Accoya) and mild steel heritage frames can be custom-made to replicate the church's original arched profiles to millimetre accuracy — a standard practice by specialists such as the York Glaziers Trust.
• Accoya timber frames carry a 50-year guarantee against rot and a lifespan of 80+ years. uPVC frames typically last just 20–30 years, yellowing and becoming brittle in the process.
• The developer himself told the Council the uPVC frames were "temporary" in March 2023, directly contradicting his current claim that they were the only option.
• The developer was advised in summer 2022 by the original Heritage Advisor that timber frames were expected.

The application also proposes to "render over" the uPVC frames and apply a vinyl woodgrain wrap as remediation. These are not solutions — they are cover-ups. Render applied over uPVC will inevitably crack as the two materials expand and contract at different rates, trapping moisture against historic masonry. A vinyl wrap mimicking timber is, at its core, a "sham" material that violates the fundamental heritage principle of truth to materials.

What the application entirely ignores:

• The significant and unaddressed loss of original historic glass.
• The introduction of synthetic "fake" leaded-lights — plastic strips applied to imitate the original crafted leaded-light glazing bars — a superficial imitation the application does not even mention.
• The Heritage Advisor's specific recommendation to remove and relocate smoke vents to a less harmful position.
• The availability of Building Regulation exemptions under Approved Documents B (Fire) and F (Ventilation) for buildings of special architectural or historic interest — exemptions the developer never sought nor explored compensatory measures (like enhanced fire detection, ridge tile vents).
• The developer has failed to provide a Heritage Statement or any evidence an accredited heritage advisor or consultant has been engaged.

Our formal objection has been reviewed by an AABC/IHBC accredited Conservation Architect and is currently being reviewed by legal counsel. It will set out in full the procedural and evidentiary failures in this application which we will share when it has been submitted.

How to object:

Submit your objection directly to Runnymede Borough Council, referencing application RU.26/0173, via the planning portal using this link before 18 March 2026.

You can keep it brief — even a short, personal objection carries weight. Tell the Council:

• This application fails to address the heritage harm identified by Place Services
• The claim that uPVC is the only viable solution is not credible
• The loss of historic glass and the introduction of fake leaded-lights must be addressed
• Like-for-like restoration using traditional materials must be required

Share this update widely. Every objection counts.

This case is not only about one building — it is a nationally significant test of whether retrospective Listed Building Consent applications can be used to regularise unauthorised heritage harms after the fact, with inadequate justification and without like-for-like restoration.

If this application is approved it sets a dangerous precedent. Heritage campaigners, conservation bodies, and communities protecting listed buildings across the country are watching. We must not allow that precedent to be set here.

Thank you for your support!

Friends of Christ Church Longcross, 

fochristchurchlongcross@gmail.com