Ingress Portal Name: Henry Ninham Plaque
Location: Chapel Field North,
Norwich, England
This portal was removed unexpectedly this morning after two months. Attached are pictures of the plaque and two angles for context of where the plaque is. It’s along a public pavement and has full public access.
It is not on a single family dwelling. The side door shows there are at least two dwellings in this building. (And the upstairs is also a multi-family dwelling).
Why was this removed?
Possibly because it’s on Single Family Private Property. It may slipped through the net when it got approved.
Hi, it’s not a single family dwelling or on private property.
Looking at it from street view, it does seem to be a private residence. It also says it’s a house on the plaque. If it isn’t a private residence, what is it currently in use as?
Also, just so you’re aware, objects on the outward facing side of a property boundary are still considered to be part of that property as per this post:
Do you have any evidence to prove it’s not a Single Family Private Property? Without any other markings on the building it’s difficult to say. Also, it may be possible the people who own the property may have asked for it to be removed.
Hi there, it’s a multi family which is allowed.
There is a property at the back of the building which appears to home 2 families, but the plaque is on the front property, and it’s fair to say that the front property doesn’t have multiple families entering the front door of the property. I can only assume that it was removed based on the front property being a single family property.
The front property is not single family, I know the residents.
I don’t know the process of how to appeal a removed Waypoint. So, if you can provide evidence that it’s not a Single Family Private Property, I would say go for it.
It’s crazy that the false removal request didn’t require evidence of their incorrect claim, if that’s indeed why it was removed. Who am I supposed to submit the evidence that it’s been falsely removed to?
I’ll have to defer to someone who has been through this process in order to give the right response.
You may need to provide some additional evidence of it not being single family in this case (you can do so by making a new comment on this thread with the evidence or editing your initial post).
All I have to go on is street view, and I’m only seeing one doorbell and one letter box on the front door, and nothing else like an intercom system. That will have been what the decision makers also saw when looking at this location.
Here is a picture of the alleyway. It is clearly labeled 10A, meaning a separate flat. This leads into a walled garden area and into one of the flats that stretches from the back to the front of the building (you can see the windows for it in the original post). The upper story is also multiple family dwellings, I know because I am literally on speaking terms with several of them. But here is evidence that I can share from the street view.
I could argue that the side property, whilst attached to the same brickwork, can be seen as a seperate property to the one on the main road. At the end of the day, it’s not us you have to convince, it will be Niantic Staff that you need to convince.
It does look to me as though this building has been split into several flats.
I suspect planning have insisted on the front keeping the original appearance but the back looks more typical of a large house split into flats.
If the house was split into flats, it would be Flat X, House Number Y. In this case the property is considered seperate dwellings with different house numbering.
Looking more, its really a mixed bag of conflicting information.
Is there any planning permission about the property.
What makes you think it was a fast removal or they didn’t provide additional evidence that you have not seen? Not all removal requests are public, and almost every request I’ve made has required additional information.
That said, good luck on collecting information on your reinstatement request. You don’t have to convince anyone responding - they’re just preemptively suggesting what Niantic will ask for.
I am sure there will be somewhere confirming planning was approved. But I don’t that is the issue in this case. I await the verdict of the Niantic Staff on this one.
Ghosts personal opionion here:
I would personlay have marked this as private propertly due to it being a housing block. making it not elegibal.
although i am keen to see what he staff verdic is on this one is. as there are pleanty of simular blue placques in the uk that would fall under sumiluer gray areas being placed on blocks of flats. which i often dont bother submitting due to the private property speculation.
