Flash lawyer who angered entire village with his plans to build a helipad at his £1.3m Hampshire mansion WINS appeal restricting number of flights from his property and could now fly billionaire clients in and out of his luxury home

A wealthy lawyer who sparked the fury of an entire village with his plans to build a helipad at his mansion has won an appeal restricting the number of flights.

Mayus Karia, one of just a few solicitor-advocates in the country, gained permission for the helipad in the back garden of his six-bedroom luxury home in Durley, Hampshire and applied for unlimited flying from his property.

But while the planning inspector ruled the number of flights is limited to 24 a year (essentially two a month) it could potentially be used to fly billionaire clients in and out of his home.

Neighbours say the father-of three-drives an SUV Rolls-Royce and even acts as if he now 'owns Durley' after moving there three years ago, while the hotshot lawyer's website reveals hourly rates of £1,200 for potential clients.

The website for his firm - London Litigation Partnership Solicitors - describes Mr Karia as 'a ferocious and meticulous litigator' and likens him to 'the genius of Field Marshal Montgomery in the battlefield'.

His planning agent says Mr Karia has several billionaire clients, including two high profile names from the USA, who need to fly in for consultations.

Villagers slammed their 'selfish' neighbour for the helipad, considering Southampton International Airport is seven miles away, a small airfield in the village of Lower Upham four miles away. and even a small airstrip on a farm on the outskirts of Durley itself.

Mr Karia moved to the village in October 2021 and already built a basketball court in the home which also boasts a 30ft detached pool house.

When the council granted the planning permission for his helipad, it specified that it was to be used for private purposes only - but the high-flying lawyer wanted to ferry in his clients too.

He granted just two personal use helicopter trips per month between 8am and 6pm by Winchester City Council.

The decision was made 'to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties' and protect the 'tranquillity' of the sleepy area.

He appealed, wanting no restrictions at all on the number of flights, but has won a hollow victory. 

The decision now states that 'the helipad hereby approved shall be used for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling.'

This potentially opens the door to Mr Karia to use the helipad for professional purposes.

His agent said he has 'billionaire clients from the USA' who want to use the helipad but they 'can't say who they are [as] they are names you may have heard of'.

City councillor Steve Miller admitted that 'a few people had been upset' by the potential disturbances caused by helicopters and said that the helipad might not even be used as much as often as the twice-a-month limit.

At the time of the original application, furious neighbours objected, saying they didn't want their 'peace ended' by the 'selfish' proposals.

A report from a Winchester City Council officer detailed why his application had been refused.

'Removal of the condition would allow continuous use of the helipad which involves unrestricted pre and post-landing noise emanating from the site,' it said.

'By its nature, helicopter operations result in high levels of noise emissions which disturb the tranquillity of the area and harm its rural character.

'The proposal therefore results in an unmitigated noise impact and adversely harms the rural tranquillity of the area.

'The potential increase in landings and potential use for client purposes as noted within the planning statement would have an adverse impact upon neighbouring dwellings.

'Removal of the condition would result in uncontrolled use of the landing site which would cause an unacceptable level of noise pollution for nearby residents in this rural area

'The proposal is considered harmful to neighbouring amenities and the tranquillity of the area.

'This decision is based upon the typical noise that a helicopter creates upon landing and take-off, so although no noise assessment was provided, the noise from a helicopter without any potential landing restrictions or use controls would have a harmful impact to the rural setting.'

Locals were vindicated after expressing concerns helicopter trips would 'spook' the large numbers of pets and livestock residing in fields in such close proximity to the  helipad.

Geoff Travers, 78, and his wife, who live opposite Mr Karia, were opposed to the plans having moved there in 1996 for a 'peaceful retirement'.

'I built the house here in 1996,' he said. 'We had a nice secluded plot of land.

'I don't think it's fitting with where we are, it's not really for Durley.'

The retired motor brokers yard owner said: 'There's a huge block of stables around the corner. There's got to be 50, or 60 horses around at all times.

'And these trees are very unstable and spindally, chunks of wood blow off in the wind. If he gets a big commercial helicopter, the dandruff off them is phenomenal.'

His wife, 75-year-old Shirley Travers, said it would have been a 'disaster waiting to happen' if plans had been approved, with a horse riding school in such close proximity.

'It's just ludicrous when an airport is a stone's throw away - it's unbelievable,' she said.

'The family are friendly when we see them but we've got to stick up for ourselves, we don't want our peace ended. We're quite a quiet little community, we all get on.'

Durley has a population of less than 1,000, just two village pubs and a single primary school with around 130 children.

Another nearby homeowner who also wanted to remain anonymous, said her biggest concerns were of safety, noise and effect on livestock.

She added: '[The Karias'] are quite flash, it's all about the look. If that's the case, I don't know why you would move to Durley.'

Singer-songwriter Sam Bower, 34, had opposed plans after moving to the area because it was quiet.

Hairdresser Megan said: 'I can't think why, in an area like this, you would think it's a good idea.

'It's just not going to work. I've got two sons aged two and seven and I have horses in the field behind where the helipad would be.

'The noise would send the horses crazy. They would jump the fences.'

Dave Humphries, 49, who is Durley born and bred having grown up in the house he still lives in, said the helipad and flights area a 'detriment to the area' and 'not something you expect in Durley'.

But Bob Stevens, who has been living and farming on nearby land for nearly 40 years, said his cattle were already well accustomed to modern day air traffic.

The 78-year-old said: 'There are enough helicopters going over here already - they take no notice of it. The proximity doesn't worry me, I'm not against it at all.'

Durley Parish Council had made their stance clear, objecting to the proposed unrestricted flying.

Opposing the application, it wrote: 'We would not want to disturb residents' tranquility by allowing additional noise 24 hours a day.

'We do have small airfields in Durley and Upham and these should be utilised if additional facilities are needed.

'Durley Parish Council agrees that the current Condition 2 should remain to protect the rural character of Durley and the residents who live near [the property].'

Mr Karia's planning agent, architectural designer Malcolm Harvey, had insisted that use of the helipad would not disturb villagers.

Mr Harvey said: 'Mr Karia does not own a helicopter and it would not be based here but we want unrestricted use because we have to be flexible for clients who want to fly in.

'He has two billionaire clients from the USA and they want to come over and be able to land here. I can't say who they are they are names you may have heard of. We want the freedom for them to fly in when they need to.

'We are on the edge of the village and the flight path would not be over the village itself.

'It is not selfish. There are lots of people who have helicopters in the Winchester area and who fly almost every day. We don't want tied to a particular number of flights per month but some months there might not be any.'