Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcape

[Guest guest]

I dont get this, its his land, and these are not structures, but a handfull of statues? so whats the problem, why is he a criminal, hasnt the law got some proper work to do? Britain The Times June 22, 2006 + Post a Comment Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcapeBy Lucy Bannerman The flying pig within his grounds is safe, but Michael Harper's imported statues were deemed visually harmful for green-belt land (Andy Calvete/Cassidy & Leigh) A MILLIONAIRE businessman thought his menagerie of three sculpted horses, four pigs and a bronze rhinoceros was in the best possible taste. Sadly for Michel Wayne Harper, his neighbours in the exclusive village of Shamley Green thought that the life-size statues were a blot on the Surrey landscape. Yesterday a jury at Guildford Crown Court agreed with the neighbours. The court ordered the 48-year-old

nightclub owner to respect the land’s green belt status and remove the sculptures immediately. Local people were first alerted to the unlawful conversion of half an acre of land next to Mr Harper’s home when he imported the eight statues from Thailand four years ago and installed them as part of a new ornamental garden. A jury found that the sculptures — “statues, not ornaments” according to their owner — were “ visually harmful” and ruled that they breached green-belt laws stating that the land should be used for agricultural purposes only. Unlike the large flying pig that guards the driveway within the legal confines of Mr Harper’s garden, the eclectic collection must be rehoused or removed and he must

pay an £8,000 fine and legal costs of £20,000. The dispute ended up in the Crown Court after Mr Harper ignored numerous warnings from the council. Speaking from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, he said: “They are not offensive at all. I think if you saw them you would think they were very tasteful. They are not offending anybody and, apart from my next door neighbours, nobody can even see them. “What would you expect to see in a paddock except some horses? It is just the same as the horses you would see in any other paddock, only these ones don’t move so much.” Villagers complained, however, that rhinoceroses, bronze or otherwise, were less commonly spotted in Surrey. A spokesman for Waverley Borough Council said yesterday: “We have to protect the green belt from those who wish to develop it without permission. The vast majority of people comply with planning controls, including planning conditions, and even enforcement notices. It would be unfair

to them to fail to take action against those who do not.” Mr Harper, the legal owner of the land, remained adamant that his unorthodox landscaping was not detrimental to the area which was home to the late Sir Harry Secombe, Richard O’Brien, Eric Clapton and Phil Collins. He said: “I took this to a jury because I had hoped laymen would see a modicum of common sense. I’ve never even had a point on my licence, but now I could have a criminal record. “For me, the whole case revolves around human rights legislation which dictates that you should be able to enjoy your home and your possessions, free from government interference. I have been denied that.” The father of three said the statues may now be rehoused around his home, once owned by Sir Richard Branson, or used to decorate the bars, restaurants and clubs he owns in

Guildford.Peter H

 

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Security Centre.

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter

 

Ooooooooh! Michel Harper eh. Not a popular man around here. He flouts all the rules about development, planning permission etc. He owns a nightclub and several drinking places locally and has brought chaos to the town centre. He wanted to turn one of the local green areas into a football stadium - thereby making it unavailable for all normal people to enjoy. He is pressing hard for one of these big casinos to be built. There are very strict rules in this area (of outstanding beauty) and you cannot even put up a large shed without permission. One of our neighbours liked old cars, but was not allowed to keep them anywhere they showed from the top of the hills around about. It is not easy to build extensions or anything. This may seem draconian but it does keep the area nice.

 

I suspect his neighbours are as enamoured with him as the rest of Surrey's population are. He doesn't have my sympathy.

 

Jo

 

-

peter VV

Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:18 PM

Re: Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcape

 

I dont get this, its his land, and these are not structures, but a handfull of statues? so whats the problem, why is he a criminal, hasnt the law got some proper work to do?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Britain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Times

June 22, 2006

 

 

+ Post a Comment

Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcapeBy Lucy Bannerman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flying pig within his grounds is safe, but Michael Harper's imported statues were deemed visually harmful for green-belt land (Andy Calvete/Cassidy & Leigh)

 

A MILLIONAIRE businessman thought his menagerie of three sculpted horses, four pigs and a bronze rhinoceros was in the best possible taste. Sadly for Michel Wayne Harper, his neighbours in the exclusive village of Shamley Green thought that the life-size statues were a blot on the Surrey landscape. Yesterday a jury at Guildford Crown Court agreed with the neighbours. The court ordered the 48-year-old nightclub owner to respect the land’s green belt status and remove the sculptures immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local people were first alerted to the unlawful conversion of half an acre of land next to Mr Harper’s home when he imported the eight statues from Thailand four years ago and installed them as part of a new ornamental garden. A jury found that the sculptures — “statues, not ornaments” according to their owner — were “ visually harmful” and ruled that they breached green-belt laws stating that the land should be used for agricultural purposes only. Unlike the large flying pig that guards the driveway within the legal confines of Mr Harper’s garden, the eclectic collection must be rehoused or removed and he must pay an £8,000 fine and legal costs of £20,000. The dispute ended up in the Crown Court after Mr Harper ignored numerous warnings from the council. Speaking from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, he said: “They are not offensive at all. I think if you saw them you would think they were very tasteful. They are not offending anybody and, apart from my next door neighbours, nobody can even see them. “What would you expect to see in a paddock except some horses? It is just the same as the horses you would see in any other paddock, only these ones don’t move so much.” Villagers complained, however, that rhinoceroses, bronze or otherwise, were less commonly spotted in Surrey. A spokesman for Waverley Borough Council said yesterday: “We have to protect the green belt from those who wish to develop it without permission. The vast majority of people comply with planning controls, including planning conditions, and even enforcement notices. It would be unfair to them to fail to take action against those who do not.” Mr Harper, the legal owner of the land, remained adamant that his unorthodox landscaping was not detrimental to the area which was home to the late Sir Harry Secombe, Richard O’Brien, Eric Clapton and Phil Collins. He said: “I took this to a jury because I had hoped laymen would see a modicum of common sense. I’ve never even had a point on my licence, but now I could have a criminal record. “For me, the whole case revolves around human rights legislation which dictates that you should be able to enjoy your home and your possessions, free from government interference. I have been denied that.” The father of three said the statues may now be rehoused around his home, once owned by Sir Richard Branson, or used to decorate the bars, restaurants and clubs he owns in Guildford.

Peter H

 

 

 

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Security Centre.

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter

 

>I dont get this, its his land, and these are not structures, but a handfull of statues? so whats the problem, why is he a

> criminal, hasnt the law got some proper work to do?

 

Ah - but this is Michael Harper, who is a right pain in the backside. He's almost single handedly turned Guildford from a once decent town into a place where you can't walk through the streets at night without fearing for your safety - he's always trying to get one up on the local planning authorities, usually costing the tax-payer thousands in the attempt, and upsetting a heck of a lot of local residents. Frankly, I'm delighted whenever he loses a case, regardless of what it may be!

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

Didnt realise he was such a nuisance?.......dont know whyhe shouldnt have statues in his garden though? does it realy hurt anyone? The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork wrote: Hi Peter Ooooooooh! Michel Harper eh. Not a popular man around here. He flouts all the rules about development, planning permission etc. He owns a nightclub and several drinking places locally and has brought chaos to the town centre. He wanted to turn one of the local green areas into a football stadium - thereby making it unavailable for all normal people to enjoy. He is pressing

hard for one of these big casinos to be built. There are very strict rules in this area (of outstanding beauty) and you cannot even put up a large shed without permission. One of our neighbours liked old cars, but was not allowed to keep them anywhere they showed from the top of the hills around about. It is not easy to build extensions or anything. This may seem draconian but it does keep the area nice. I suspect his neighbours are as enamoured with him as the rest of Surrey's population are. He doesn't have my sympathy. Jo - peter VV Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:18 PM Re: Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcape I dont get this, its his land, and these are not structures, but a handfull of statues? so whats the problem, why is he a criminal, hasnt the law got some proper work to do? Britain The Times June 22, 2006 + Post a Comment Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcapeBy Lucy Bannerman The flying pig within his grounds is safe, but Michael Harper's imported statues were deemed visually harmful for green-belt land (Andy Calvete/Cassidy & Leigh) A MILLIONAIRE businessman thought his menagerie of three sculpted horses, four pigs and a bronze rhinoceros was in the best possible taste. Sadly for Michel Wayne Harper, his neighbours in the exclusive village of Shamley Green thought that the life-size statues were a blot on the Surrey landscape. Yesterday a jury at Guildford Crown Court agreed with the neighbours. The court ordered the 48-year-old nightclub owner to respect the land’s green belt status and remove the sculptures immediately. Local people were first alerted to the unlawful conversion of

half an acre of land next to Mr Harper’s home when he imported the eight statues from Thailand four years ago and installed them as part of a new ornamental garden. A jury found that the sculptures — “statues, not ornaments” according to their owner — were “ visually harmful” and ruled that they breached green-belt laws stating that the land should be used for agricultural purposes only. Unlike the large flying pig that guards the driveway within the legal confines of Mr Harper’s garden, the eclectic collection must be rehoused or removed and he must pay an £8,000 fine and legal costs of £20,000. The dispute ended up in the Crown Court after Mr Harper ignored numerous warnings from the council. Speaking from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, he said: “They are not offensive at all. I think if you saw them you would think they were very tasteful. They are not offending anybody and, apart from my next door neighbours, nobody can even see them. “What

would you expect to see in a paddock except some horses? It is just the same as the horses you would see in any other paddock, only these ones don’t move so much.” Villagers complained, however, that rhinoceroses, bronze or otherwise, were less commonly spotted in Surrey. A spokesman for Waverley Borough Council said yesterday: “We have to protect the green belt from those who wish to develop it without permission. The vast majority of people comply with planning controls, including planning conditions, and even enforcement notices. It would be unfair to them to fail to take action against those who do not.” Mr Harper, the legal owner of the land, remained adamant that his unorthodox landscaping was not detrimental to the area which was home to the late Sir Harry Secombe, Richard O’Brien, Eric Clapton and Phil Collins. He said: “I took this to a jury because I had hoped laymen would see a modicum of common sense. I’ve never even had a point on

my licence, but now I could have a criminal record. “For me, the whole case revolves around human rights legislation which dictates that you should be able to enjoy your home and your possessions, free from government interference. I have been denied that.” The father of three said the statues may now be rehoused around his home, once owned by Sir Richard Branson, or used to decorate the bars, restaurants and clubs he owns in Guildford. Peter H To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Security Centre. Peter H

 

 

Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal

[Guest guest]

I think it is the fact that they were very large and could be seen from the beauty spots. The councils are very strict about spoiling the countryside round here.

 

Jo

 

-

peter VV

Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:53 PM

Re: Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcape

 

Didnt realise he was such a nuisance?.......dont know whyhe shouldnt have statues in his garden though? does it realy hurt anyone?

 

The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork wrote:

 

Hi Peter

 

Ooooooooh! Michel Harper eh. Not a popular man around here. He flouts all the rules about development, planning permission etc. He owns a nightclub and several drinking places locally and has brought chaos to the town centre. He wanted to turn one of the local green areas into a football stadium - thereby making it unavailable for all normal people to enjoy. He is pressing hard for one of these big casinos to be built. There are very strict rules in this area (of outstanding beauty) and you cannot even put up a large shed without permission. One of our neighbours liked old cars, but was not allowed to keep them anywhere they showed from the top of the hills around about. It is not easy to build extensions or anything. This may seem draconian but it does keep the area nice.

 

I suspect his neighbours are as enamoured with him as the rest of Surrey's population are. He doesn't have my sympathy.

 

Jo

 

-

peter VV

Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:18 PM

Re: Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcape

 

I dont get this, its his land, and these are not structures, but a handfull of statues? so whats the problem, why is he a criminal, hasnt the law got some proper work to do?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Britain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Times

June 22, 2006

 

 

+ Post a Comment

Green-belt 'statues' are sent into wilderness as a blot on landcapeBy Lucy Bannerman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flying pig within his grounds is safe, but Michael Harper's imported statues were deemed visually harmful for green-belt land (Andy Calvete/Cassidy & Leigh)

 

A MILLIONAIRE businessman thought his menagerie of three sculpted horses, four pigs and a bronze rhinoceros was in the best possible taste. Sadly for Michel Wayne Harper, his neighbours in the exclusive village of Shamley Green thought that the life-size statues were a blot on the Surrey landscape. Yesterday a jury at Guildford Crown Court agreed with the neighbours. The court ordered the 48-year-old nightclub owner to respect the land’s green belt status and remove the sculptures immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local people were first alerted to the unlawful conversion of half an acre of land next to Mr Harper’s home when he imported the eight statues from Thailand four years ago and installed them as part of a new ornamental garden. A jury found that the sculptures — “statues, not ornaments” according to their owner — were “ visually harmful” and ruled that they breached green-belt laws stating that the land should be used for agricultural purposes only. Unlike the large flying pig that guards the driveway within the legal confines of Mr Harper’s garden, the eclectic collection must be rehoused or removed and he must pay an £8,000 fine and legal costs of £20,000. The dispute ended up in the Crown Court after Mr Harper ignored numerous warnings from the council. Speaking from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, he said: “They are not offensive at all. I think if you saw them you would think they were very tasteful. They are not offending anybody and, apart from my next door neighbours, nobody can even see them. “What would you expect to see in a paddock except some horses? It is just the same as the horses you would see in any other paddock, only these ones don’t move so much.” Villagers complained, however, that rhinoceroses, bronze or otherwise, were less commonly spotted in Surrey. A spokesman for Waverley Borough Council said yesterday: “We have to protect the green belt from those who wish to develop it without permission. The vast majority of people comply with planning controls, including planning conditions, and even enforcement notices. It would be unfair to them to fail to take action against those who do not.” Mr Harper, the legal owner of the land, remained adamant that his unorthodox landscaping was not detrimental to the area which was home to the late Sir Harry Secombe, Richard O’Brien, Eric Clapton and Phil Collins. He said: “I took this to a jury because I had hoped laymen would see a modicum of common sense. I’ve never even had a point on my licence, but now I could have a criminal record. “For me, the whole case revolves around human rights legislation which dictates that you should be able to enjoy your home and your possessions, free from government interference. I have been denied that.” The father of three said the statues may now be rehoused around his home, once owned by Sir Richard Branson, or used to decorate the bars, restaurants and clubs he owns in Guildford.

Peter H

 

 

 

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Security Centre.

Peter H

 

 

 

Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal