Nooks & Corners

In the most recent edition of Private Eye (Issue 1672 3 April 2026), the section dedicated to all things regarding architecture and historic preservation, “Nooks and Corners”,  covered the woeful case of Christ Church Longcross.

The article writes:

“The listing notes for Christ Church Longcross, near Chertsey in Surrey, describe the small Victorian church in red brick and Bath stone as "an unusually complete mid-19th century country church".

Alas, that status has been wrecked by developer Gary Humphreys, who has taken out most of the fine stained-glass windows by noted artists and replaced them with, er, chunky white UPVC windows.

Some of those windows have chopped up bits of the old windows encapsulated inside them. All of the building's original leaded light windows are also gone, replaced by UPVC with modern fake black strips.”

It adds:

“"It is unambiguous that these works are unlawful," noted a report to Runnymede council last year, adding: "This was clearly not an optimal result from a heritage perspective; UPVC is not a preferential material for the conversion of a listed building.”

This is putting it mildly - the material is normally forbidden in conservation areas, let alone on pre-20th century listed buildings."

 Noting that:

“The developer was asked to submit a listed building consent application to at least replace the UPVС frames with timber. But what Mr Humphreys actually submitted in February was a retrospective application to keep the horrible work he has already done.”

Concluding:

“While much of the damage to the glass may be irreparable, allowing the UPVC windows to stay would set a terrible example for the care of listed and historic buildings everywhere.”

Applicant’s response to the Heritage Objections - 30 March 2026

The Applicant has responded to the Heritage Objections continuing to claim timber frames would not be technically possible while providing no written evidence from an accredited Heritage timber framing expert.

The response also remains completely silent on:

• The loss of over 50% of the original stained glass.
• The wholesale loss of all original leaded light glazing.
• The plastic strip imitation leaded light bars identified by Place Services as a specific heritage harm.
• The uPVC dormer cheeks chosen for “maintenance reasons” (Agent’s Supporting Document, paras 9 and 17).
• The absence of a lawful pre-works baseline in the Applicant’s Heritage Statement to properly assess the heritage harms in the balancing exercise.
• NPPF paragraph 209 on deliberate damage and the prohibition on using a self-created deteriorated baseline.
• Building Regulations exemptions under Approved Documents B and F for listed buildings and offer from RBC Building Control to explore options.
• The absence of any Condition Survey Report by a Conservation Accredited Practitioner before the works were undertaken.
• The option to use heritage timber construction techniques for bespoke deep-rebate joinery from templated profiles machined from Accoya or other stable hardwood.
• The consequence of using a non-heritage approach in the encapsulation of the stained glass resulting in double the thickness of the sealed unit from conservation best practice.
• The misidentification of plaster render as Bath stone in Figure 13 of the Heritage Statement.
• The Judicial Review Consent Order’s foreclosure of the “conditions not precise” argument and the Applicant’s own agreement to the Signed Consent Order from the Court.
• The absence of any heritage justification for the rooflight.

We are still awaiting the Heritage Consultation Response from the Council’s own Heritage Advisor.

Theresa Burton

Founder, Friends of Christ Church Longcross