Single-storey mill extension at Heavers Mill, Framfield

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey side extension with a glazed link, boundary wall alterations, replacement cladding, window changes and internal works.

“Proposal The application seeks planning permission for: • Erection of a single storey side extension, to include a glazed link element extending over the existing lower ground floor. • Alterations to the stone boundary wall. • Replacement timber cladding. • Changes to existing windows.”

“Replacement of external guttering. • Internal alterations. The single storey side extension would be 13.71m wide and 7.18m deep, protruding beyond the rear of the existing property by 0.72m. It would have a pitched roof with a rear facing gable end and a ridge height, at its highest point, of 4.23m and an eaves height, at its highest point, of 2.49m.”

Officer report

The site

Heavers Mill is a rural former watermill and three-and-a-half-storey Grade II listed dwelling beside Tickerage Stream.

“Executive Summary The application site concerns Heavers Mill, a former watermill that is now a dwelling which is located in a rural location on a narrow road, adjacent to Tickerage Stream. The dwelling is a three and a half storey black weatherboarded C18 Grade II listed building, with a two-storey extension to the side which was added when the property was converted to a dwelling in the 1960’s (later altered and enlarged).”

“Site and Surroundings Heavers Mill is a former watermill located in a rural location on a narrow road, adjacent to Tickerage Stream. The dwelling is a three and a half storey black weatherboarded C18 Grade II listed building, with a two-storey extension to the side which was added when the property was converted to a dwelling in the 1960’s (later altered and enlarged).”

Officer report

Application history

The listed building application and related applications for the extension and outbuilding conversions were awaiting determination.

“Relevant Planning History (Full planning history available on the Council’s website) WD/2025/1561/LB - Demolition of existing extension at ground floor level and the construction of a new single storey extension with glazed link. Alterations to the stone boundary wall, minor alterations to the existing house - awaiting determination.”

“WD/2025/1562/F - Demolition of existing extension at ground floor level and the construction of a new single storey extension with glazed link. Alterations to the stone boundary wall, minor alterations to the existing house - awaiting determination. WD/2025/1564/F - works to facilitate the conversion of two outbuildings to form an office and games room - awaiting determination. Pre-Application Advice None requested.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers advised refusal because the design, scale and prominent position would harm the listed building, and limited benefits would not outweigh that harm.

“It is deemed that the proposal, by reason of the design, massing, scale and prominent siting within the streetscene, would result in less than substantial harm as it fails to preserve features of special architectural or historic interest and the setting of the former mill building with no clear or convincing justification for the harm or losses proposed, and few evident heritage benefits.”

“Recommendation Listed Building Consent BE REFUSED.”

Officer report

Other views

No representations were received.

“Consultation Responses The following consultation responses and representations have been received. These responses are summarised. Full versions of the consultation responses and representations are available on the case file available on the Council’s website (link above).”

“In this instance, it is considered that there may be scope to reduce the impact on the listed building, and thereby the level of harm to its significance, under the aims of Paragraph 208 of the NPPF which seeks to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage assets conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in favour, and the local ward member spoke about the application without voting.

The committee vote

The motion to refuse was not carried, while a motion to approve contrary to the officer recommendation passed six votes to two with no abstentions.

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Everitt, seconded by Councillor Clark to Refuse Listed Building Consent in line with officer recommendation.”

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Hulbert, seconded by Councillor Howell to approve Listed Building Consent contrary to officer recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

Listed Building Consent was granted because no harm was identified, the design was considered sensitive, and the project supported the building’s long-term viability.

“RESOLVED: That Contrary to officer recommendation, Listed Building Consent be granted for the following reasons:”

“No harm is identified. This is a sensitive design with choices such as glazed links separating old and new. This project supports long -term viability of the listed building in line with statutory duties in sections 16 .2 and 66 .1 of the Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 and with NPPF paragraphs 202 and 210.”

Minutes