Home   News   Article

Homes bid for 'eyesore' Flying Boat pub site fails to take off




Designs viewed from the north (Image: Williams Lester Architects)
Designs viewed from the north (Image: Williams Lester Architects)

PLANS to build seven new homes on the “eyesore” site of a former Calshot pub wrecked by fire have been turned down by the national park authority.

Habib Ghahramanizadi, of Dibden Purlieu-based FB Estates, submitted an outline application for the Calshot Road site, which was once home to the Flying Boat Inn. The popular pub was demolished after a blaze in 2001.

Similar plans by the same applicant were refused by the NPA a year ago. At a meeting of the national park authority’s planning committee at Lymington Town Hall a new, smaller-scale version was also refused.

The meeting heard how the application was backed by Fawley Parish Council and two members of the public had submitted letters in favour of the plans. The NPA had also received a 100-name petition supporting the development.

Cllr Alexis McEvoy, a district and county councillor for Fawley, spoke in support. She said: “I believe strongly that this development is sensitive to its surroundings, it has the support of Fawley Parish Council and will be welcomed by local residents.

“It will add some much-needed vibrancy to the village. Frankly, the site is an eyesore – it is a blot on the landscape. This is such an opportunity.”

Documents submitted for the 0.8-hectare site, which included 14 parking spaces, said the development was designed to echo the characteristics of a farmyard, with rural-style materials and architecture.

The original building, photographed in 1971, was an RAF officers' mess before becoming a hotel
The original building, photographed in 1971, was an RAF officers' mess before becoming a hotel

However, the NPA’s executive director of strategy and planning, Steve Avery, said: “This application goes against every single policy we have in the local plan. It couldn’t be simpler than that.”

A report to members of the planning committee stated that the site was outside of the NPA’s defined village boundaries, where policy is stricter for new development to protect the national park.

It warned that approval would set a “highly undesirable precedent that would encourage similarly inappropriate and ad-hoc private housing developments”.

It was not included in Local Plan policies by government inspectors as it was classed as being in an isolated position with limited facilities nearby.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More