Why was this portal removed?

Technically you would be wrong…If multiple apartments are in a building or block and they are the only people with access to a POI then it is still available for submission and acceptance as this doesn’t constitute PRP. Everyone in the block that has permission to be there, be residents or visitors can access the POI. With this POI it is clearly accessible by more than the residents of the different apartments or flats that make up the building so should be even less of a concern.

2 Likes

In our city there are portals that are in secure locations (one you have to be an employee of Anglian water to access, one is in the middle of a medical building, and those are just two I know personally can’t be used)

The portal in question is on a wall of a building split into flats, you can go from the pavement and touch it with out trespassing.
Even if this was a private residence I do not fully understand why it would be discounted unless only the resident has access to it, I would say most plagues are on single resident buildings but by design are where the public can see and read. Here was the workshop of… Here lived… Etc.

Streetview shows the plague has been there years, shows how easy it is to get to from the street, if I was reviewing it I would declare it valid
This shows how close to the pavement it is, so not private land.

This shows it better and that it was there in 2008

On a personal note, removal of plague based portals because they are on a single residential building (though doesn’t seem to be the case here) would result in a massive loss of portals across Norfolk. I feel the rule is in place to stop people cheating, haven’t a private portal only they can access… The whole point of the plagues are they are in places the public can read.

2 Likes

Having dug around the murky world of planning permission ( with help from an expert) it seems that this house has applied to split it into flats - notably the cellar as a separate flat - twice, but that the council turned it down.
So officially it remains 1 house. If it is purporting to be more than one then it does not appear to have planning.
So I would expect the decision to not allow it would be correct.

@NorfolkDave the fact that you can stand on the public pavement and touch it is not relevant. Please check the references to the criteria clarifications. The key is that anything on the wall of a single family private residential property (SFPRP) is considered a hard no. This is the result of a legal case a few years ago.
It is unfortunate as many of the truly interesting blue plaques are about places where people lived and many remain SFPRP so that cant be included in wayfarer. It is just the way it has to be.

4 Likes

That is interesting, is there any way of knowing what that planning permission would have entailed? Because the basement is treated (and rented to the best of my knowledge) as a separate flat it even has it’s own reception room. I don’t think it is even considered a house-share, but even if it were, I don’t think you can count a house-share as a single-family dwelling.

What is unofficially happening with the house is perhaps something different, than what is officially recorded. This set up is something this place has clearly been pushing for. As it is a listed property in a conservation area any changes will be under close scrutiny.

A house share would count as one shared home. So for example HMO (houses of multiple Occupancy) count as one home even although there are many individuals. If you like the definition of “family” is very broad, but anb HMO will have communal spaces most commonly a shared kitchen and bathroom, perhaps outside space too.
If instead of a room in a house it was configured slightly differently to be say studio flats, then each flat is a self-contained home and the communal space is the passageways to reach an entrance point.

So the key check point is the official documentation, and that is recording a SFPRP.

Edited to add sorry I didn’t actually answer the part about what planning would have entailed. They would have had to submit a planning application as changes to a listed building require to be approved and building regualtions met regarding the new layout.

1 Like

Thanks for the appeal, @Mokozz We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire this Wayspot.

2 Likes