A TOP politician said his village is "under attack" from council planners as he joined residents to successfully argue against a modern supermarket and retirement flat block.

Plans for 25 ‘later living’ apartments and a Sainsbury’s store in Bourne End were thrown out by councillors last night after committee members found the modern design overbearing.

Jim Penfold, chairman of Bourne End Residents’ Association, said although villagers were in favour of the concept of retirement flats at Parade Court, the flat-roofed block was “ugly” and out of keeping with its surroundings.

Mike Appleyard, deputy leader of Bucks County Council and Bourne End councillor, said permission for a raft of modern buildings had destroyed the traditional character of the village in recent years.

He said: “Over the years it seems Bourne End has been under attack from Wycombe District Council. It started in the 60s and 70s when a whole range of buildings were put up.

“Since then, there has not been one traditional building built in that part of the village. This really does make a nonsense of planning in a characterful area like Bourne End.”

Developer McCarthy and Stone consulted with residents before submitting the plans, maintaining the flat roof design would reduce the bulk and overall size.

Planning officers had earmarked the proposal for approval, advising there is already a wide range of building styles, old and new, in the vicinity.

But their recommendations came up against a unanimously opposed committee at WDC’s Wycombe offices on Tuesday.

Cllr Clive Harris said: “The building is completely out of context and it seriously concerns me that just because there is a mixture of designs there is no excuse to put up a big slab of rubbish."

As well as the appearance, residents raised fears over the number of parking spaces for Sainsbury’s.

Councillors questioned a parking survey which revealed it would have no impact, insisting nearby cul-de-sacs would become overflow car parks for the convenience store.

The application was refused on the grounds that it was out of keeping with its surroundings, with a request that any subsequent application for the same site looks again at the parking provision.