South Terrace – Incorrect PRP Rejection of Grade II Listed Historic Terrace

[GymLeaderSilas]

• Wayspot Title: South Terrace
• Location (lat/lon): 51.351738, -2.981998
• City: Weston-super-Mare
• Country: England

I am requesting review of an incorrect rejection of South Terrace, a Grade II listed Victorian historic terrace in Weston-super-Mare.

This nomination has now been rejected multiple times under incorrect interpretation of Niantic criteria, specifically by wrongly classifying the site as private residential property.

South Terrace is:

• A Grade II listed historic Victorian terrace, built in the late 1840s
• Officially protected heritage architecture
  Documented in Historic England records
• Referenced in Historic England’s Weston-super-Mare architectural research report
• A multi-unit residential terrace used as flats/apartments, not a single-family private residence

This is crucial because Niantic PRP rules apply to single-family private residential property, not historic listed terraces containing multiple flats.

Both reviewers and Niantic repeatedly classified this as private residential property despite:

• It being a protected listed historic structure;
• The terrace being a multi-unit building, not a detached single-family home;
• The nomination being fully visible and safely accessible from public pavement;
• Google Street View clearly showing the full terrace from public access.
  The nomination does not require entering private land to view, identify, or appreciate it.
  
  
  
  
  

First nomination:

• Submitted: 22 March 2026
• Rejected 30 March 2026
• Reasons:
  “Likely not permanent or distinct”
  “On private property which is not publicly accessible”

Second nomination:

• Submitted: 5 April 2026
• Rejected again as private property

Niantic Appeal:

• Rejected again as “property of a private residence”

These repeated contradictory and incorrect outcomes strongly suggest the nomination is being judged from quick visual assumptions rather than proper review of the supporting evidence and criteria.
The first rejection saying a Grade II listed 19th-century stone terrace is “not permanent or distinct” is plainly inconsistent with the objective heritage facts.

Anchor Photo Clarification
The anchor image shows one architecturally distinctive section of the terrace, specifically:

• Ornamental Dutch-style gabled parapet
• Finials
• Quatrefoil opening
• Distinctive Victorian façade detailing

This is intentional: it highlights identifiable heritage architecture within the larger listed terrace.

Street View confirms the full continuous terrace block is clearly visible.

Relevant Official Sources

Niantic Architecture / Eligibility Criteria

Historic England Grade II Listing Record

Historic England Research Report (Weston-super-Mare Architectural Development)

This Historic England research is not informal web content.
It is based on archival maps, fieldwork, heritage surveys, historic records, and official documentation.

I request that this nomination be reassessed based on:

• Correct PRP interpretation,
• The documented listed heritage status,
• The fact this is a multi-unit historic terrace, not single-family residential property,
• Niantic’s own published eligibility criteria.

This appears to be a clear case where the nomination has been repeatedly skim-reviewed as an ordinary residence instead of being evaluated as the protected historic architectural site it actually is.

Thank you.

[elijustrying]

Hello and welcome @GymLeaderSilas
It is frustrating when a nomination gets rejected repeatedly.

I am a fellow UK wayfinder - so familiar with the terminology you are using.
What I cant see from the photos is the original nomination:
Title, description, and supporting text plus the supporting photo.
And the location it was submitted at.
And the text that you submitted for the appeal.
Could you post those please so that we can see exactly what the reviewers and the appeal staff saw.
What we often see when there are some mixed reasons is that reviewers were not happy to vote positively as they had doubts for a number of reasons, so looking at the submission we can see if there is a specific issue that has caused the problem.

I am also moving this to nomination support as the appeals section is for something different and specific.

[GymLeaderSilas]

Hi @elijustrying

Pleased to meet you and thank you for your prompt response.

Bellow is the nomination first time submission that was rejected by Wayfarers.

Following that rejection, I submitted again using the same photos from the first time (unfortunately, didn’t have time to make my way to the location again and try different photos) and after that had been rejected, I decided to go through with the appeal on that nomination.

P.S - I am aware this nomination was attempted a few years ago by someone else with the same outcome and similar rejection reasons. We gave up on it as at the time the Historic England research article had not been published yet. In the meantime I had many other terraces, buildings and structures accepted with less “fuss”. On the rare occasion something was rejected by Wayfarers, appeals came through very quickly with a different outcome which lead me to belive my nominations were pretty straightforward. And chalked the initial rejection from the community to perhaps lack of experience or knowledge around the subject.

Many thanks for your time and patience,

Gym Leader Silas

[elijustrying]

Hi,
I am guessing that an issue might be related to the listing site

For some reason the wrong image is attached to the start of the listing.
Now to me that building is very obviously not a terrace. However some people may look and just see a mismatch to the location you have given. And that might trigger a negative view of a nomination.
So if you resubmit tackle that issue in the supplementary.
Perhaps someone in here has contacted historic England and can get that corrected. The correct picture is further into the listing.

The other key issue is proving that you are not placing the pin on single family private residential property SFPRP.
This is trickier. Although you are submitting the terrace as a whole each house is separate. Now although these early Victorian homes were built to accommodate large well-off families and a servant or two, these days many have been converted into flats. The listed status can put a restriction on the external appearance of multiple doorbells etc. some of the properties have multiple black bins and satellite dishes, both indicators of flats. A zoopla search shows flats

There is nothing about number 8
So this terrace is not SFPRP.
This research has taken time and that is one thing that reviewers and the team dont have. It is best if you can put some of this into your nomination. The websubmit option allows for up to 5 images. As this is clearly visible on street view you coukd use some screenshots to provide information to reviewers ( I then include links in the supplementary).
I would also have stated those aspects about flats in the supplementary. You possibly mis-stepped by even putting in the phrase private property.
Sometimes the Wayfarer Team will see posts like this and review the decision made by the appeals team. You may find that the decision gets reversed. If it doesn’t ( give it several days) i think you can now put together a slightly better submission (I recommend getting a new photo)

If all else fails I might try in the Summer as I often stop to take a break from M6/M5 boredom

[GymLeaderSilas]

Hi @elijustrying,

Thank you for the detailed response. That genuinely helped.

I’ll admit I was pretty frustrated, but I can see your point now, especially around the Historic England image mismatch (unfortunately, I been using the mobile website version and didn’t pick up on that) and how the terrace might be interpreted at a glance. That explains a lot about how this was reviewed.

I’m definitely less frustrated now and can see where I need to adjust my submissions to make things clearer and easier for reviewers.

I’ll wait a few days and see if the Wayfarer team comes across this and decides to review or reverse the decision. In the meantime, there’s a lot of other nominations in the area I’ve struggled with that I can now revisit and improve based on this.

This has given me a much better perspective going forward, both for submitting and reviewing.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

[elijustrying]

Happy to help.
If you ever have questions just ask .

[TheDoctorBird]

Remember though residences and their definitions are subject to the laws/regulations/property rules which relate to land you live in. The Niantic critera being used here to justify it not a single residence is possibly based on the US. Other countries have different laws and rules and these MUST be taken into account for any nomination and reviewing.

We, you and I are all subject first and foremost to the law/rules of where that nomination sits. The Niantic Terms and Conditions are explicit - they come first.

This means not all apartments/blocks of flats can be treated even. Many other countries have their own laws and with their own rules right down to the property itself. The onus is therefor on the reviewer to prove that no local laws/rules are “broken” for where that nomination sits.

Where I live - in law and down to the apartment rules (kinda like a property governance) - my apartment is single private residence (the apartment I live in). Niantic review/nomination Criteria are null in void as the Niantic Terms and Conditions are primary. End of story - this is not a grey area. It is black and white.

So yes if you read the Niantic Terms (which you did and do when you play/participate in any of their activities) they expressly state local laws/rules/regulations at the location of a nomination take precedence over Niantics Terms. In fact anyone who says go do 'cause Niantic nominations criteria says - is potentially ( I say potentially) in breach of said terms for that statement. Yeah. I know.

Yes it is murky. But please be aware why it is murky to many people. 'cause as I said not all things are equal… So saying people lack knowledge could be wrong. Saying according to X could be wrong. Saying it has been skim viewed could be wrong. I said could (I don’t know). It is subjective on many layers. I am just trying to add an alternate view worth considering as to why people will reject. Many actually know the terms not just the criteria.

I would say where murky more effort is required when creating nominations but I don’t what else you could do here !! Lotta info you got on this!

Mind you skim viewing really does come to mind when someone selects “Not permanent and distinct.” That would really get my blood going!!! Well actually - it does get my blood going.. ThoughI once clicked the wrong thing to reject something and I was mortified. It was one in thousands. But it made me aware that sometimes people just click on the wrong thing. …

Good luck @GymLeaderSilas and I love Weston-Super-Mare. I hope you have lots of good stuff there

[salixsorbus]

You might be failing for private-property because reviewers feel this should be rejected and are choosing PRP as the rejection reason even if it isn’t technically the correct rejection.

You are submitting the terrace itself, which is basically people’s houses. That is undoubtedly going to make reviewers uncomfortable.

[elijustrying]

But it should be ok as there is clear evidence that these are divided into flats - I think one had 5 or 6 flats.
I they were all as built - SFPRP- would apply, but that is not the case.

[salixsorbus]

I agree it isn’t SFPRP, but the submission is the actual residences. Not a feature on the outside or something in the grounds, but the buildings. That is the problem.

[GymLeaderSilas]

Hi @elijustrying,

Quick update on this one.
You were absolutely right about the time factor. I stepped back and looked at it from a reviewer’s perspective. If something takes too long to verify or requires digging through links and websites, most people simply won’t do it and will default to skipping or worse, rejection, sometimes with incorrect reasons.

I resubmitted, but this time I changed approach completely. Instead of trying to get the whole terrace accepted, I focused on a single, clearly identifiable architectural feature (the ornate gable). I kept the description concise and used the supplemental photos to directly support what was visible, prove the location is not SFPRP, and point to the correct Historic England submission, rather than expecting reviewers to research it themselves.
That nomination has now been accepted, and noticeably much faster than some of my other submissions that tend to sit in voting for days.
So the issue wasn’t necessarily the subject itself, but how much effort it required from the reviewer to understand and verify it.
I appreciate you pointing that out. It has definitely changed how I will approach both submissions and reviews going forward.

[elijustrying]

That’s great that it helped not just with this one but about going forward too.
Also great that another point of interest has been accepted.
If you ever need a second pair of eyes on something you know where to come.
Good Luck