Please Object Directly to the Council
While the Council waits for the formal heritage advice from their Built Heritage Advisor, there is still time to add your voice to object to this vandalistic and shocking retrospective Listed Building Application seeking to retain the loss of 50% of the stained glass, 100% loss of the remaining historic glass and the use of domestic glazing with fake leaded light strips in bulky uPVC frames.
You can object by using this link: https://bit.ly/4dvg0Gu
Case Covered on BBC News and Radio
The case was recently covered by BBC Radio Surrey on the March 17th breakfast show interviewing heritage campaigner Theresa Burton, Runnymede Councillor Andrea Berardi and County Councillor Jonathan Hulley.
Theresa Burton, Founder of Friends of Christ Church Longcross said:
“This case is a deliberate and reckless disregard for well-established heritage conservation policy and methods. There is a wealth of heritage bodies who provide accreditation for architects, conservators, crafts people, surveyors, and the Developer didn’t engage any of the them.”
County Cllr Jonathan Hulley said:
“I would argue, [the building] is impacted significantly negatively by the sight of a number of these bright white UPVC windows on all parts of the building. What needs to change, in my view, is for the developer to remove those UPVC windows and replace them with wooden-framed windows, because that would be more in keeping with the character of that historical building.
The developer himself said back in 2023 that the uPVC was only a temporary measure. If he refuses to do so, I believe that the planning enforcement team should step in.”
Runnymede Cllr Andrea Berardi said:
“It’s a tragedy that the developer has asked for the UPVC windows to remain in place after it was made very clear by heritage advice that the original windows should be restored. So, it's just unacceptable.
We need homes, but there are laws in place that require heritage buildings to be adapted appropriately. This isn't just about one church in Longcross; if protections around listed buildings can be ignored without consequence, it just sets a very dangerous precedent for historic buildings across the country.”
The case was also covered in the BBC online news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99jepz7zngo
Refuting the Developer's Premise this was the "only viable solution"
The developer is arguing that the only way to save the building for residential use is the use of domestic double glazing and uPVC frames. This is a completely false premise. He simply ignored heritage advice and standards and failed to engage any accredited conservation experts.
1) The developer himself made a statutory declaration that the window frames would be timber and metal when he applied for planning permission in 2019.
2) The developer’s Listed Building Consent application in 2019 said the windows would be repaired and some windows converted to opening.
3) The developer failed to commission a Condition Survey Report by a Conservation Accredited Practitioner. There is no evidence that the damage to the windows was so extensive that replacement was required.
4) Even if replacement was the only option for some windows, heritage guidance is clear that like-for-like replacement is required.
5) In a discussion with the Council regarding an encapsulation proposal for the Stained Glass in 2022, the developer was given clear and unambiguous Heritage Advice that timber frames were expected (as well as a Listed Building Consent application).
6) The encapsulation proposal discussion in 2022 did not cover the treatment of the remaining leaded light historic glass. No proposal for their wholesale removal and replacement with domestic double glazing with fake leaded lights was discussed.
7) The developer failed to engage an accredited conservation architect, engineer or surveyor at any point in the project (RIAS, AABC, CARE, RICS).
8) The developer failed to use an accredited conservation restorer (ICON, IHBC) in any of the crafts of stained glass, historic framing (timber or metal), stonework, or plaster work. These crafts and skills are at the heart of historic conservation and have the appropriate knowledge, methods and techniques to carefully restore, repair and replace historic fabric. He simply didn’t use their services - the skills existed to sensitively repair the building’s fabric - he just ignored them.
9) The original Listed Building Application stated that “extra glazing bars” would be present at floor levels across the original stained and historic glass window openings. Instead they were chopped up with a large floor transom. Had a conservation architect been consulted other solutions were available, such as the recent example from St John’s Church in Coleford which gained permission for conversion into 12 flats [Forest of Dean Planning Application P0965/22/LBC].
10) The developer claims building regulations required double glazing and uPVC frames. This is false. Listed Buildings have exemptions and compensatory mechanisms that Building Control will consider. Despite a Senior Building Control Officer from the Council stating a flexible approach would be adopted, the developer failed to explore this.
11) The developer used a stained glass studio that was not accredited by ICON, this resulted in failing to apply conservation techniques to encapsulated Stained Glass which has resulted in the units being double in thickness.
12) Even with the thick encapsulated Stained Glass units, the Developer claims timber frames can now not be made to fit them. This is false. There are specialist accredited conservation timber frame firms which have the necessary skills and techniques to create the bespoke hardwood frames to take the encapsulation units while using templates to match the unique profile of the window openings.
13) The developer claims the encapsulated Stained Glass will be damaged or lost if removed from the uPVC frames. This is false. Removing sealed glass from a standard uPVC frame is a standard low-risk glazing procedure. It is not required to extract the stained glass from the sealed unit itself. The developer himself told the Council in March 2023 the uPVC was temporary - thus admitting it was technically possible.
14) The developer claims the plaster around the windows will be damaged when the windows are removed for remedial works. This is the very same type of damage the developer himself caused when he removed the windows back in 2022. Careful removal by an accredited conservation firm can minimize damage and specialist skills exist in heritage conservation to repair and replace like-for-like the plaster that is damaged. It is a matter of skill and expertise, not a technical impossibility.
In Summary: the Developer undertook these works without Listed Building Consent permissions, he ignored planning laws, he failed to heed any Heritage Advice or published Heritage Guidance, and he failed to engage any accredited conservation experts or conservators in the heritage sector.
There are a wealth of heritage experts and accredited conservation professionals and crafts people across the UK who put their heart and soul into preserving our unique history. There are numerous examples of residential church conversions which have successfully achieved a sympathetic restoration of the building’s heritage while meeting modern building regulations and creating suitable housing.
The premise that this building could not have done likewise is false.
Theresa Burton
Founder, Friends of Christ Church Longcross