The Headington Shark - Revision history

Magnuswdhh at 09:57, 18 November 2023

2023-11-18T09:57:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:57, 18 November 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain as it did not cause ‘harm to the visual amenity’.		As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain as it did not cause ‘harm to the visual amenity’.

−	In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house to ensure its preservation.	+	In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Bill Heine’s son, Magnus Hanson-Heine bought the house to ensure its preservation.

	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =		= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =

−	* Avoiding planning permission pitfalls.	+	<ul>
−	* Big Duck.	+	<li>Avoiding planning permission pitfalls.</li>
−	* Drina river house.	+	<li>Big Duck.</li>
−	* Fish Building, India.	+	<li>Drina river house.</li>
−	* Gate Tower Building, Osaka.	+	<li>Fish Building, India.</li>
−	* House Attack.	+	<li>Gate Tower Building, Osaka.</li>
−	* ING House.	+	<li>House Attack.</li>
−	* Lucy the elephant.	+	<li>ING House.</li>
−	* Planning permission.	+	<li>Lucy the elephant.</li>
−	* Sheep and Dog Buildings, Tirau.	+	<li>Planning permission.</li>
−	* The Hole House.	+	<li>Sheep and Dog Buildings, Tirau.</li>
−	* The Kelpies.	+	<li>The Hole House.</li>
−	* Unusual building design of the week.	+	<li>The Kelpies.</li>
−	* Upside Down House, Poland.	+	<li>Unusual building design of the week.</li>
		+	<li><p>Upside Down House, Poland.</p>
		+	=== External references ===
		+
		+	<p>[https://www.headingtonshark.com Official Shark House site]</p></li></ul>

	[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]		[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]

Designing Buildings at 08:19, 20 November 2020

2020-11-20T08:19:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:19, 20 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~[[Unusual_building_design_of_the_week\|See the full Unusual building of the week series here.]]~~
−
	[[File:Shark1.jpg\|link=File:Shark1.jpg]]		[[File:Shark1.jpg\|link=File:Shark1.jpg]]

Line 19:		Line 17:
	In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house to ensure its preservation.		In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house to ensure its preservation.

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Avoiding planning permission pitfalls.		* Avoiding planning permission pitfalls.
Line 38:		Line 34:
	* Upside Down House, Poland.		* Upside Down House, Poland.

−	[[Category:~~Projects_and_case_studies~~]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]

Editor at 16:44, 1 May 2020

2020-05-01T16:44:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 1 May 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:
	* Gate Tower Building, Osaka.		* Gate Tower Building, Osaka.
	* House Attack.		* House Attack.
		+	* ING House.
	* Lucy the elephant.		* Lucy the elephant.
	* Planning permission.		* Planning permission.
Line 37:		Line 38:
	* Upside Down House, Poland.		* Upside Down House, Poland.

−	[[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]	+	[[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]

Editor at 16:42, 17 April 2020

2020-04-17T16:42:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 17 April 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:
	* Gate Tower Building, Osaka.		* Gate Tower Building, Osaka.
	* House Attack.		* House Attack.
		+	* Lucy the elephant.
	* Planning permission.		* Planning permission.
	* Sheep and Dog Buildings, Tirau.		* Sheep and Dog Buildings, Tirau.

Editor at 13:22, 31 October 2017

2017-10-31T13:22:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 31 October 2017
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* House Attack.		* House Attack.
	* Planning permission.		* Planning permission.
		+	* Sheep and Dog Buildings, Tirau.
	* The Hole House.		* The Hole House.
	* The Kelpies.		* The Kelpies.

Designing Buildings at 11:08, 9 October 2017

2017-10-09T11:08:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:08, 9 October 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:
	* Planning permission.		* Planning permission.
	* The Hole House.		* The Hole House.
		+	* The Kelpies.
	* Unusual building design of the week.		* Unusual building design of the week.
	* Upside Down House, Poland.		* Upside Down House, Poland.

	[[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]		[[Category:Projects_and_case_studies]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]

86.191.129.248 at 07:04, 2 August 2017

2017-08-02T07:04:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 2 August 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	The Headington Shark is a terraced house located in Headington, Oxford, that features a sculpture of a large shark on the roof.		The Headington Shark is a terraced house located in Headington, Oxford, that features a sculpture of a large shark on the roof.

−	Officially called Untitled 1986, the shark sculpture is embedded head-first, giving the impression of it having fallen out of the sky.	+	Officially called Untitled 1986, the shark sculpture is embedded head-first, giving the impression of having fallen out of the sky.

−	It was installed by crane to the roof of 2 New High Street on 9th August 1986 by Bill Heine who said that his motive was “…to express someone feeling totally impotent and ripping a hole in their roof out of a sense of impotence and anger and desperation … it is saying something about CND, nuclear power, Chernobyl and Nagasaki.”	+	It was installed by crane on the roof of 2 New High Street on 9th August 1986 by Bill Heine who said that his motive was “…to express someone feeling totally impotent and ripping a hole in their roof out of a sense of impotence and anger and desperation … it is saying something about CND, nuclear power, Chernobyl and Nagasaki.”

	The shark was designed by sculptor John Buckley and built by a local carpenter friend using painted fibreglass. It weighs 200 kg and measures 7.6 m (25 ft) in length.		The shark was designed by sculptor John Buckley and built by a local carpenter friend using painted fibreglass. It weighs 200 kg and measures 7.6 m (25 ft) in length.
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[File:Shark2.jpg\|link=File:Shark2.jpg]]		[[File:Shark2.jpg\|link=File:Shark2.jpg]]

−	Although the police were informed of the installation taking place, they were unable to take action ~~due to~~ there ~~being~~ no law ~~against~~ a homeowner installing a ~~shark~~ sculpture on their own roof.	+	Although the police were informed that the installation was taking place, they were unable to take action as there is no criminal law preventing a homeowner installing a sculpture on their own roof. However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted enforecment action because of a lack of planning permission.

−	~~However~~, it ~~was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and~~ Oxford ~~City Council trying~~ to ~~remove it on safety grounds~~. ~~When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because~~ of the ~~lack~~ of ~~planning permission~~.	+	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain as it did not cause ‘harm to the visual amenity’.

−	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to it not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.	+	In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house to ensure its preservation.
−		+
−	In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house ~~so as~~ to ~~enable~~ its ~~future~~ preservation.	+

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

Editor at 13:45, 1 August 2017

2017-08-01T13:45:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:45, 1 August 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:
	However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because of the lack of planning permission.		However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because of the lack of planning permission.

−	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.	+	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to it not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.

	In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house so as to enable its future preservation.		In August 2007, the shark was renovated by Buckley, and in 2016, Heine’s son bought the house so as to enable its future preservation.

Editor at 13:45, 1 August 2017

2017-08-01T13:45:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:45, 1 August 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Although the police were informed of the installation taking place, they were unable to take action due to there being no law against a homeowner installing a shark sculpture on their own roof.		Although the police were informed of the installation taking place, they were unable to take action due to there being no law against a homeowner installing a shark sculpture on their own roof.

−	However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because planning permission ~~had not been given~~.	+	However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because of the lack of planning permission.

	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.		As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.

Editor at 13:44, 1 August 2017

2017-08-01T13:44:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:44, 1 August 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[File:Shark2.jpg\|link=File:Shark2.jpg]]		[[File:Shark2.jpg\|link=File:Shark2.jpg]]

−	Although the police were informed of the installation taking place, they were unable to take action due to ~~their~~ being no law against a homeowner installing a shark sculpture on their own roof. However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because planning permission had not been given.	+	Although the police were informed of the installation taking place, they were unable to take action due to there being no law against a homeowner installing a shark sculpture on their own roof.
		+
		+	However, it was the immediate focus of controversy, with local residents complaining and Oxford City Council trying to remove it on safety grounds. When this proved unsuccessful they attempted removal because planning permission had not been given.

	As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.		As time went on though, it became a minor attraction for Oxford and support from local residents’ began to grow. After six years of legal proceedings, central government became involved, with ministers in the Department of the Environment deciding in 1992 that the shark could remain due to not resulting in ‘harm to the visual amenity’.