Is this REALLY not valid?
Hi guys. I posted maybe last week about a nomination I had rejected that I 100% believe is valid. I am honestly struggling to see why this isn’t valid. It is such a historical nomination and locally quite notorious.
Unfortunately you can’t get the kiln in the shot as it is behind the houses and rather small but you can see it in google maps (sorry for my messy writing in the picture below). The cottages and kiln are listed together.
My supporting info:
As you can see the site is clearly safe for pedestrian access and not a generic business (these were the rejection reasons given although I know some review put any old reason if they are going to reject).
My info word for word:
Short Street Houses and Flint Kiln are part of the old Spencer Stevenson Pottery works in Longton, Stoke on Trent. The houses were former workers cottages back in the hey day of pottery works.
They are listed at Historic England and on conservation land. Please note that the houses are unoccupied and have been for many years. They are now a piece of Stoke on Trents pottery history.
List entry number: 1297907
Heritage category: Listing
Location: 23, 25 and 27, Short Street, Non Civil Parish, LONGTON, STOKE ON TRENT, City of Stoke-on-Trent.
The houses are also a well known local haunted hotspot, featured on local newspaper “The Sentinel’s” most haunted list.
Furthermore, the houses have been used for filming, featuring in the screen play of local author Arnold Bennett’s “Clayhanger”.
Can someone please tell me WHY this is not valid? Could it simply be a case of people just not understanding the history of Stoke-on-Trent?
Below is a link to a YouTube video that may also be helpful:
Thanks guys... opinions are always welcome even if they differ from my own. Am I just wrong about it being valid?
I think this is valid after watching that video.
I'm a bit confused as to what info you provided in your supporting info. Was it the paragraph after the "supporting info" title and picture, or was it the two paragraphs after "My info word for word"?
I'm very new here but would definitely agree that a Grade II-listed site that's visible from a public street and not by/in a private residence should qualify as a Wayspot!
Maybe you could change the Wayspot title? I wonder if the words "vacated pottery works cottages" could be triggering rejections by people mistaking them for temporarily empty private homes?
How about something like "Historic flint kiln from former Spencer Stevenson Pottery works" with a bit more description saying that it's Grade II-listed, date etc. That's the main subject of the listing, after all, though I realise that the official listing includes the cottages too. Perhaps it is less likely to be misunderstood by some reviewers? In the official listing on Historic England they've used a photo from the far end of Short Street which does show the flint kiln, though it's not as good a shot of the cottages. It's a similar view to 4:35-4:45 in the YT clip. There's a much better shot of the flint kiln by itself here (AND it explains why it's really a flint kiln not a botte oven!) : http://www.thepotteries.org/photos/short_st/index.htm
Official listing for others here to look through
I'll be interested to see what wise and experienced people here have to say. =)
Hi... My supporting info was from ”my info word for word” to the word “Clayhanger”. Thank you :)
Thank you for your input. The kiln associated with these houses is the one from the last picture, the thinner one and it is almost impossible to get a picture of the whole lot together... the larger kilns in the pictures are associated with the Enson Pottery works on the other side of Short Street and they are already a portal/gym.
Because of the level 17 cells, I have to be careful where I place this nomination, I can’t just stand anywhere on the street because of the Enson Pottery works but also, I have to place the nomination in the correct place so it’s not a mismatched location. I guess I could walk a bit further away to take the photograph maybe to try to get everything in, or maybe focus on the kiln more than the houses as you suggested?
I appreciate the time you took to offer advice :) thank you.
Are the houses still used as houses to this day?
Also, what is the significance of Spencer Stevenson Pottery works? It might help to explain why it is notable for what is essentially just a generic looking building/facade
No.. they haven’t been lived in for years...
The Pottery works have had several names over the years, but all the old pot banks around stoke are listed buildings, Pottery is Stokes history. Spencer Stevenson produced Duchess China, which is very well known all over the world.
I would focus on the cottages rather than the kiln, as you said the Kiln can't be accessed so you would be likely to get a rejection again for pedestrian access if you placed the location on the correct structure - the kiln.
You said the cottages are also listed and the video shares some info that you could include to sell the cottages well. The heritage and why they have been preserved - are they part of/owned by the museum? Might be worth mentioning that if so.
I would focus on the history of how people used to live. That it was common for essential workers to live a stone's throw away from their place of work - in this case, to provide round the clock care for the kilns which operated 24/7. And I would mention about them being small, 1 room dwellings, which would usually house a family of 6, which used to be the norm.
I agree with the above post about some of the wording possibly making reviewers think that people live there or may live there soon, so would change words like vacated, although it doesn't look like it was rejected for PRP?
It is a shame that a good photo isn't available of the kiln and the cottages as it would be cool to include them both in the photo. Then you wouldn't have the mention that the kiln is there as they could see it. From the video it looked like the only angle to get the kiln and cottages in would mean making the graffitied wall take up most of the image which wouldn't be great. I think the supporting photo angle is better than the first photo. But could just turn it a bit, to remove the road for the first pic :-)
Really hope you get good results on your next try and it is a cool bit of history about how workers used to live.
Thank you @LochKnessie-PGO for your advice. I do honestly think this should be accepted so I will take all your points on board.
It is a shame isn’t it, that the only way to get the houses and kiln together is to take a picture with that ugly graffitied wall right at the forefront.
I will consider the angle of the picture too like you said :)
I believe the houses may well be owned by the museum so yes that could be something good to add! I will also focus more in my supporting info about how the workers used to live, all packed into those tiny houses just a stone throw from work.
Again, thank you!
Suggest a Photo Sphere as well since the google car didn't go up short street.
I can do that :)