I thought multiple residential occupancy was not a rejection criteria. I have provided evidence that this former hotel has been converted into three flats rather than a single private dwelling. I had a listed building in use as almshouses accepted recently, which also was in use for multiple residential occupation.
I also provided evidence of the listing and the community still somehow consider it not permanent or not distinctive.
Have I misread the guidance and this is never going to be acceptable or is it a duff community decision?
I had a building that had always been commercial pre1800, converted into flats rejected as PRP. I referred to previous street view which showed its history but still rejected.
It happens.
So try an appeal but provide evidence that it’s now multi family.
1 Like
Other than the link to the approved plans for the conversion, which I provided with the original submission, I am struggling to think of any other publicly available evidence to demonstrate current occupation by three units: 10, 11 & 12 Crown Mews? Maybe paste the approved plans in this thread and then link to it in the appeal?
You could try that.
It sounds good evidence to me
1 Like
Check the address that is ahown on the nomination.
I nominated “The Old Rectory” (now used as business office) but the address showed “The New Rectory” (Single Family Residence).
Took a couple of attempts to get it through… 
1 Like
It defaults to 97 Ock Street, which is the building to the left (west) of the main photo, which is a single family residence. I don’t know how to stop it doing that, because it’s not where the pin is. On google maps, the numbering is a total mess, with the properties on Crown Mews being plotted all over the place.
You can’t edit it. I just mentioned it in the extra info.
1 Like
Here’s the back of the building:
Here’s the three entrances:
As shown on the plans:
The unit numbers don’'t tally with the as built addresses, but you can see Unit 10 is ground floor only, and Units 9 and Unit 11 are first floor except for hall / staircase.
I did wonder if it is possible to link to this thread in the supporting information for a resubmission, rather than using an appeal, but would that be seen as “influencing reviewers”?
The more I think about this one, I could do a better job of the nomination, so I think a resubmission is an appropriate next step. Found another useful link to include which shows how the building used to look and refers to apartments rather than single residence: Abingdon and surrounding areas facts and history. and here: Mr Warwick Arms, Abingdon and some interesting background to the name which I can’t post the link to, because it used to be called the “C*ck and Tree”.
I think for a resubmission no, as it would be obvious who you are.
1 Like
I find first impressions matter - reviewers make a judgement based on the photograph. Unfortunately, the building looks like PRP from the front, which is difficult to get past.
1 Like
This was how I eventually managed to get an old house that is now subdivided into flats approved via appeal.
I think the supporting picture maybe helped, where I made a collage of a wider angle and then a zoomed in section with the multiple flats listed on 1 sign. I liked my appeal statement basically saying well, you guys put a power spot on it so are you going to tell me it’s unsuitable? 
Private residence rejections for non sfprp are so common, its annoying but its a constant thing
2 Likes
One question I do have is the multiple doors which do make it feel a bit more like sfprp
Well that’s where the floor plans help to explain the internal arrangement and it is helpful that the other links I have found all say “apartments” rather than “house”.
I had to go out, so had a look in Crown Mews on my way back. The front doors are in the positions indicated on the photo / plans and Unit 10 is No.10, Unit 11 is No.11 and Unit 9 is No.12.
1 Like
If you have an appeal, do that, if not wait till you have an appeal and do that lol. If it fails appeal, come back here, hopefully a nia staff member (or scopely by then?) Can reverse it
1 Like
A second submission providing extra detail about the history of the building and more information to demonstrate that the current use of the building is multi-occupancy and highlighting the address error on the map. If it gets rejected for the same reasons I’d be more confident appealing this version by providing a link to annotated plans and photos.
[EDIT] to supplementary information to deal with SFPRP issue first and refer to criteria clarification regarding multi-residential occupancy.
2 Likes
Yep. Resubmission failed. They looked at the photo and didn’t read further. Fortunately, my appeal cool-off ends this weekend.
I got this for review and accepted because I had read the thread, even though I suspected this would harm my rating.
2 Likes
