Dear supporters,

Thank you to those who have already written in an objection. The deadline for public objections is 18 March 2026 - please consider to add your voice!

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

Historic England Has Formally Objected
 
On 9 March 2026, Historic England — the government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment — wrote to Runnymede Borough Council and formally objected to the application. This is a significant and formal intervention.

Historic England’s letter confirmed:

• The former Christ Church is an attractive former chapel of ease of 1847 by architect EH Willoughby. Its tall lancet windows with leaded stained glass “of various dates by noted artists of the period” were of particular architectural interest.
• The unauthorised works have had a harmful impact on the architectural integrity of the listed building.
• The original stained glass was “chopped up in sections and encapsulated within new uPVC units, and the stone surrounds have been painted over.”
• A significant portion of the original stained glass has been removed entirely. Its whereabouts are unknown, and its loss is neither explained nor justified in the application.
• Had Historic England been consulted at any earlier stage — on the original consent, the discharge of conditions, or the redetermination following Judicial Review — they would have objected and sought a less harmful solution.

Historic England’s formal conclusion: it objects on heritage grounds because the proposals caused harm to the listed building’s significance and no consideration was given to options that would avoid or minimise that harm, with no clear and convincing justification provided.

Their objection carries significant formal weight in the Council’s determination of the application but please do add your own voice to object.

The Developer’s Heritage Statement is materially deficient
 
Friends of Christ Church Longcross have submitted a detailed Heritage Statement Analysis identifying eighteen distinct grounds on which the developer’s Heritage Statement — the document submitted to justify the works — is materially deficient.

The core argument the developer makes is that uPVC was the only viable solution. The analysis demonstrates that this is a false dilemma built on flawed evidence and inadequate professional consultation. Among the eighteen grounds:

• No Condition Survey Report was ever commissioned before the works were carried out — the essential precondition, under Historic England’s own guidance, for replacing historic windows. This threshold requirement was never met.
• The Heritage Statement fails to document the baseline against which the application should be determined. The pre-works condition is the only lawful baseline. It is post-hoc rationalisation, not evidence of a genuine options appraisal.
• The developer’s own 2019 Listed Building Consent application declared the proposed window materials as “Timber and metal.” The Heritage Statement does not engage with this statutory declaration.
• In 2022, the Council’s Heritage Adviser gave unambiguous written instructions specifying timber sub-frames and requiring a Listed Building Consent application. These were forwarded directly to the developer by the Council’s Enforcement Officer. He failed to comply.
• The Transfer of Title (17 July 2020) contains a binding restrictive covenant specifically protecting the stained glass. The Heritage Statement makes no reference to it.
• The Heritage Statement consulted only three companies on whether timber frames were viable: Everest Windows (a mass-market domestic glazing company) and two stained glass studios. None are specialist heritage timber fenestration contractors. No accredited conservation joinery specialist was consulted. An accredited conservation architect was never engaged (e.g. AABC, IHBC).
• The unusually thick (40mm) sealed units reflect a non-specialist encapsulation approach by Knowles Stained Glassworks, which is not listed on any IHBC specialist register. Conservation-standard encapsulation produces units of 20–24mm — capable of fitting within bespoke timber frames.
• The loss of over 50% of the original stained glass panels is not disclosed in the Heritage Statement. It presents partial preservation as though it were full preservation.
• The loss of 100% of the original leaded light glass and the plastic strip imitations in place now — identified by Place Services as a specific heritage harm — are not mentioned anywhere in the Heritage Statement.
• Building Regulations exemptions for listed buildings under Approved Documents B (Fire) and F (Ventilation) are never mentioned, let alone explored — undermining the claim that uPVC was an unavoidable necessity.

Please Object by 18 March 2026
 
The public consultation on application RU.26/0173 closes on 18 March 2026. With Historic England having formally objected and the failure in the developer’s own Heritage Statement, this is the moment for your voice to count.

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

Many thanks for your support!

Theresa Burton

Founder, Friends of Christ Church Longcross