I am sorry I strongly disagree with the rejection here “The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning” I link to local historical society who have it in there list of local historical buildings. It was connected to local historical victorian railway engineer so historical important to local community. Only two things I could added in hind sight to supporting info is listed building and also said railway engineer was “one of Britain’s most celebrated Victorian railway engineers. Crossley was Engineer-in-Chief of the Midland Railway and is most famous for building the Settle-Carlisle Railway, widely regarded as one of the greatest engineering achievements of the Victorian era. He widened the railway cutting through Barrow upon Soar to four tracks in 1868 and is buried in Holy Trinity Churchyard in the village.”
Description
Built in 1925, this two-storey building on Melton Road served as the garage and chauffeur’s quarters for The Mount, a grand residence on Shooting Close Lane. The Mount was built for John Sydney Crossley’s brother, Crossley being the renowned Victorian engineer behind the Settle-Carlisle Railway. The property later passed to his daughter Bertha, who officially opened that famous railway line.
Supplemental Information
This building, known as The Mount Garage, is a historically significant structure in the village of Barrow upon Soar, Leicestershire. Built in 1925, it served as the garage and chauffeur’s flat for The Mount, a grand residence on Shooting Close Lane, and is believed to have housed one of the first private cars in the village. The Mount itself has strong connections to John Sydney Crossley (1812-1879), one of Britain’s most celebrated Victorian railway engineers. Crossley was responsible for the Settle-Carlisle Railway, widely regarded as one of the greatest engineering achievements of the Victorian era. He was also the engineer who widened the railway cutting through Barrow upon Soar to four tracks in 1868. The Mount was built for his brother, and later passed to his daughter Bertha, who officially opened the Settle-Carlisle Railway. The building is documented as a place of historical interest by the Barrow upon Soar Heritage Group, and features in their official heritage trail booklet covering places of historical interest in the village. It is listed as point N on that trail. Please note that this building is not a private residential property. It is currently used as a commercial business premises and is situated on Melton Road, accessible from the public highway. Reviewers should not confuse this with a residential address. It is a two-storey structure and remains standing today as a visible link to the village’s Victorian and Edwardian history. Further information can be found at the Barrow upon Soar Heritage Group website: https://www.barrowuponsoarheritage.org.uk/articles/leaflets-and-documents/heritage-groups-booklet-places-of-historical-interest.html
Only thing I can think is to resubmit with less supporting text. As it seems since I last added stops reviews in Wayfarer community have moved away from wanting more supporting text vs to less.
On this kind of nomination, I try to get the important historic details into the description, where anyone who interacts with the Wayspot later can see them. For the supporting, there is no need to restate the details in the description. Simply add the links to prove what you say is true.
It’s not so much the length of the Supplemental it’s the amount that is either repeating the description or adding info that is not relevant.
You talk in length about John Sydney Crossley although state that it was built for his brother and passed to his niece so not really a strong connection.
I would add that it is Grade II listed in the description and a link to its page on the “Historic England” website in the Supplemental.
I can see it is on the local history site but I can’t see it on Historic Englands listing or the councils locally listed buildings.
If it is on either of the official listings that is a key piece of information that needs to be the focus. That will explain why this is so significant.
What is it exactly that makes going to see this building interesting.
It was built to be a functional place - nothing wrong with that. How does that function /role make this building significant. How was the village developing in the mid 1920s?
You need to draw out that story of the building, and its impact on the place. Then you will have shown its historical and cultural significance.
Thank you for your advice. I thought I would post here with changed version for feedback before I submitted.
Description:
Built in 1925, this two-storey locally listed building on Melton Road was constructed as the private garage and chauffeur’s quarters for The Mount, a grand residence on Shooting Close Lane. In the 1920s Barrow upon Soar was a thriving working village, its residents employed in limestone quarrying, gypsum extraction and hosiery. A purpose built private garage with a resident chauffeur was a powerful symbol of wealth and social status, believed to have housed one of the first private motor cars in the village.
Supporting:
This building is formally recognised as a locally listed building by Barrow upon Soar Parish Council, valued for its heritage and townscape contribution to the village.
I would stick to the info regards the actual nomination and not the place it’s in for the Description, you could put the rest in the supplement if you wish.
That is much better to read.
I agree with @SlimboyFat71
From what I can see the garage entrance looks big - cars were generally much smaller 100 years ago.
So a large garage for the car to be looked after is where the prestige element is. Describe the building the ground floor was for housing and maintaining the car so it was a large open space. The upper floor was for chauffeur responsible for the car so they were on hand when needed.
Over the link while it does just display if you go-to link doesn’t download. I can also make that obvious. I can also put screenshot of document in additional photos.
It’s interesting you raise this, because my instinctive reaction to getting a community rejection is to clarify compliance with criteria by providing more information. In a few cases this has then led to me going down a rabbit hole with a cycle of text expansion and subsequent rejection.
Sadly rejected again To me if local council have declared it of historical significance in the local community and I proved that. That should be enough. But hey ho. Anyway not sure now what to put extra on resubmit.
Description
Built in 1925, this two-storey locally listed building on Melton Road was constructed ground floor private garage and upper floor chauffeur’s quarters for The Mount, a grand residence on Shooting Close Lane. A large purpose built garage with a resident chauffeur was a powerful symbol of wealth and social status at the time, believed to have housed one of the first private motor cars in the village.
Whilst not exactly the same, this does remind me of this nomination I made last year:
Aside from the SFPRP issue, in response to me adding more information about its historical significance, in the second rejection reviewers added a ‘lacks uniqueness / historical / cultural meaning’ reason which wasn’t part of the initial refusal. Ultimately, I got the impression that too many reviewers were looking at the main photo and deciding from that alone that the nomination was SFPRP and not listed. I appealed and it was waved through.
I think that could be what is happening here. Too many reviewers are concluding from the main photo that this is an ordinary building and then not proceeding to read the other evidence.
The difference between my nomination and yours is that I didn’t have the option of adding multiple photos to the supporting photos using the web submission. You have the ability to add some third party images or annotated images into the nomination, whereas I could only reference those by links and in the case of the annotations by linking to that thread only in the appeal.
Forgetting reviewers not doing a task they signed up to do (when I review I always read supporting info before denying something to me that is “basic contract” of doing a review).
However like in your case what do you add additional photos. Sadly at moment I can’t find any photos of place from 1920s as in 1920 you would not take photo “of the helps quarters”. Going to have to do some more searching..
Anyway I will search some more see if I can find any additional “photo evidence” I can add.
Although the community reason for rejection was SFPRP rather than any lack of historic / cultural issue, I thought I would show you this as an example of how the web submission with the additional supporting photos can be used to address a concern. I have used them to provide photographic evidence of the separate bin stores, the satelite dishes, the utility meters, details of Flat 1 on Rightmove and streetview with letting/sale boards referring to two of the flats. This brings all of the information previously contained within text and links in the Supplemental Information to the fore:
I might use one of my appeals as the local council decided it has historic importance. The reviewer using reason for rejection is wrong and mens just not very good at doing a review.
As never done appeal what info should I include to make sure appeal is a success.
I’ve only done a handful of appeals, but you can see what I wrote for one of the appeals dealing with a heritage issue in the link to another topic I posted. I usually highlight the relevant eligibility criteria - in this case, why would this be a great place for someone to explore? What might someone find interesting about the building and what clues are visible about its backstory? I then address any acceptance criteria and run through any rejection criteria.
To me if local council have declared it of historical significance in the local community and I proved that. That should be enough. But hey ho. Anyway not sure now what to put extra on resubmit.
