Single-storey mill extension at Heavers Mill, Framfield

What was proposed

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

“Executive Summary The application site concerns Heavers Mill, a former watermill that is now a dwelling, 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).”

“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.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

Heavers Mill is a rural former watermill and Grade II listed dwelling beside Tickerage Stream, outside a development boundary and within flood risk areas.

“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).”

“Proximate to a Public Right of Way (PROW) 50C.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two related extension applications were refused in 2019, while associated 2025 applications remained awaiting determination.

“WD/2019/1279/F- Bespoke single-storey apex extension to be constructed to the right of the existing dwelling - Refused 16 September 2019. WD/2019/1280/LB - Bespoke single-storey apex extension to be constructed to the right of the existing dwelling - Refused 16 September 2019. WD/2025/1561/LB - Demolition of existing extension at ground floor level and the construction of a new single storey extension with glazed link.”

“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 recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the design, scale and prominent position would overdevelop the property and harm the listed building without sufficient public benefit.

“It is considered that the proposal is not informed by the existing built environment and would be overdevelopment of the existing dwelling, resulting in changes that would be incongruous and detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the visual amenity of the streetscene and the special character of the listed building and setting - which would neither be preserved nor enhanced, contrary to local and national policies and design guidance.”

“The proposals would, by reason of the design, massing, scale and prominent siting, be a form of development that is inappropriate and incongruous, and which over develops the existing property - detracting from the integrity, character, and visual appearance of the property and surrounding area.”

Officer report

What residents raised

One objection raised concerns about the design, materials, roof boards and the proposed boundary wall height.

“Representations The application has attracted 1x representations of objection, raising the following material planning considerations: Concerns over the proposed design and materials, and the impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area, due to the incorporation of vertical boards on the roof of the extension and the height of the proposed wall.”

Officer report

Who spoke

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

How members voted

A motion to refuse permission was not carried, and members then voted five to three to approve permission contrary to the officer recommendation.

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Everitt, seconded by Councillor Glynn White to refuse Full Planning Permission in line with officer recommendation. This motion was not carried.”

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Hulbert, seconded by Councillor Howell to approve Full Planning Permission contrary to officer recommendation.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee granted permission, identifying no harm and supporting the listed building’s long-term viability through the sensitive design.

“RESOLVED: That Contrary to officer recommendation, Full Planning permission 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

A condition was noted

The committee required a condition concerning light-restricting glass and referred to the officer’s other recommended planning conditions.

“A condition recommended for use light restricting glass and that refer back to officer's recommendation for other planning conditions…”

Minutes