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.
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
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… 
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
