Judge grants permission for judicial review challenge to lack of enforcement action over church building conversion
The High Court has agreed to hear a judicial review challenge of Runnymede District Council's failure to take enforcement action over the conversion of a disused church building into flats.
In an order issued last week (2 April), Mr Justice Mould agreed that the court should hear the claim on four grounds, including one which alleges breaches of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The district council granted permission to convert the disused church into five dwellings in 2020.
In November 2024, the council then granted retrospective planning permission for the alteration of stained glass windows and alterations to the shape of the building's dormers.
Theresa Burton, a former Runnymede councillor who founded the group Friends of Christ Church Longcross in 2018, claims the works resulted in more than half of the original stained glass being lost and the council failed to take any enforcement action on other listed building issues.
She also complained that historic Bath stone had been plastered over, all of the remaining "historic glass" had been removed, and that non-traditional uPVC window frames had been installed, contrary to Historic England guidance.
Burton issued an application for judicial review in January 2025 on the following grounds.
1. Failure to have regard to material considerations in deciding not to take enforcement action pursuant to s.38 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
(a) Failure to understand the statutory scheme for listed building control
(b) Failure to address considerations material to assessing the unauthorised works
(c) The scope of the listed building consent
(d) Flawed understanding of the policy framework
2. Listed Building Consent 19 November 2024, Failure to consult properly and to take into account the product of the consultation.
(i) Failure to Consult Properly
(ii) Failure to take proper account of Built Heritage Advice
3. Failure to comply with duty in Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in Granting Listed Building Consent
4. Enforcement Report 2 December 2024 - reconsider if Listed Building Consent quashed
5. Failure of Duty of Inquiry / Tameside Duty
Mould J granted permission for the claim on grounds 1, 2 (ii), 3 and 5.
The judge meanwhile refused ground 2 (i) and ground 4.
In a change.org petition, Burton said the judicial review raised “an important point” as the applicant's agent had argued that unless listed building planning permission explicitly protects an element of the listed heritage asset, the applicant does not have to apply for listed building consent, in this case to alter and replace stained glass windows with uPVC alternatives.
She said Runnymede had wrongly accepted this, adding: “This is a critical test case of the law and one which is of relevance to the protection of heritage assets across the country and the precedent it would set.”
A spokesperson for Runnymede District Council said: “As this scheme was built out, we received a significant number of enforcement requests from a member of the public who raised enforcement concerns with regards to a number of different matters on the site. All enforcement matters raised have been fully considered and investigated.
“The person seeking a judicial review does not agree with the decisions of the Council with regards the fenestration in the scheme, and has submitted a number of grounds of challenge to the courts with regards decisions about the windows.
“Being granted a hearing only means that the Court is willing to hear arguments for and against in more detail with regards some of the grounds raised. Allowing a hearing to take place is not an indication that the Courts agree with either the Council or the claimant’s position, and it is absolutely not a decision either way. It is the start of a new stage of consideration about specific aspects of the claim.
“The Council will comply with the requirements of the Judicial Review process and justify the reasons for its decision.”
Adam Carey
