The owner of Oxford’s Headington Shark house has become embroiled in an argument with Oxford City Council over the iconic landmark’s heritage status.
The sculpture, which was erected in 1986 by journalist and broadcaster Bill Heine, was the cause of a six-year planning row with Oxford City Council. Heine had submitted a planning application, which the council rejected. He appealed to the then-environment secretary, Michael Heseltine. The rejection attracted a wide audience who came to the shark’s defense. Peter Macdonald, Heseltine’s planning inspector, ultimately decided to allow the sculpture to remain.
Now though, the Shark sculpture at 2 New High Street, Headington, is one of 17 proposed additions to the Oxford Heritage Asset Register. The position of the City Council is far different than its original attempts to remove the sculpture, and instead they intend to preserve it.
The sculpture was constructed by John Buckley. He worked alongside a group of volunteers consisting of students and anti-war activists in what was a three month process before the shark was transported to its permanent location.
Magnus Hanson-Heine, who inherited the house in 2016, is adamant he does not want it added to the city council’s list of important pieces of heritage. The quantum chemist, who works at Nottingham University, said there were two aspects to his objection to its inclusion on the heritage asset register.
Dr Hanson-Heine said he feared it was “a stepping stone” towards getting it listed on a national basis, meaning more planning controls, although “this is academic as I have no intention of removing it”. On top of this, if it was listed, it would go against the purpose of the sculpture, which was to protest planning restrictions and censorship.
He said: “I see what they are trying to do and I’m sure it’s very well intentioned. But they don’t view it now as what it is. You grow up with these things, they become part of the scenery and you lose focus of what they mean.”
“My father always resisted giving any conclusive answer to the question of what the meaning was of it as it was designed to make people think for themselves, and decide for themselves what is art.”
“But it was anti the bombing of Tripoli by the Americans, anti-nuclear proliferation, anti-censorship in the form of planning laws specifically.”
Dr Hanson-Heine qualified this statement when speaking to Cherwell stating, “Those were clearly reasons for putting the shark up, but the surreal shock of seeing something like that unexpectedly and having the chance to look again at your surroundings and the art work with “fresh eyes” to add your own meaning, I don’t think that’s an afterthought.”
Dr Hanson-Heine does not ‘resent’ the council for the years it spent trying to have the controversial sculpture removed or for finally approving of it. However, he has complained about the alleged restrictive nature of the public consultation on the addition of these landmarks.
He said: “The nomination forms have been, let’s say, lacking in that they do not really provide an option to object to the listing for listing’s sake.”
“They ask questions like ‘do you think it adds value to the area’ which most people would say, yes it does. They have not given the option to say no. They have not truly consulted in that sense.”
The consultation ends on January 26 after the deadline was extended from December.A decision will then be taken as to whether the nominations should be added to the register. Inclusion of a building or place on the register “helps to influence planning decisions in a way that conserves and enhances local character”. However, it does not place any extra legal requirements on owners.
Image: Eoin Hanlon
