DEVELOPERS looking to build a 44 extra care apartment complex in Stow-on-the-Wold were told to rethink the design because it is imposing and out-of-character in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Outline planning permission for the scheme on Fosseway was granted by Cotswold District Council (CDC) in August 2014, before a long and ‘challenging’ design process resulted in a building plan described as a ‘malevolent, misshapen toad on the principle northern gateway to our town’ by a spokesman for the town council.

Andrew Easterbrook, who has been advising Stow town council on the plans, speaking at a CDC planning committee meeting on Wednesday (October 12), said: “Exhaustive commentary has been sent to your planning officer for why this scheme is flawed in its design and no amount of tweaking will overcome the problem of the brief.

“The designs do not reflect or extend the Cotswold tradition, rather they are a caricature.

“This building will squat like a malevolent, misshapen toad on the principle northern gateway to our town.”

CDC committee members were also told that the town council and residents, as well as Cotswold MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, County Councillor Nigel Moor and CDC Ward Councillor Dilys Neill have all shown opposition to the design and the perceived lack of affordable care offered by applicant McCarthy & Stone who has taken over the scheme after the original developers dropped out.

Town Councillor Al White, also speaking at the meeting, said: "Stowe Town Council has consistently argued that the McCarthy and Stone proposal does not meet the requirements for extra care housing, which Brackley [Investments Ltd] was given outline planning permission for.”

He said that the outline planning permission was for affordable open market accommodation while he believed the pricing and services to be provided by the new applicants is actually higher end commercial accommodation.

Cllr White urged committee members to ‘delay consideration’ and that a ‘new application for approval should be required’.

However, case officer Deborah Smith, who had recommended the reserved matters application be approved by the committee, reminded members that they should only be considering the appearance, layout and scale, as well as landscaping.

She said: “We're not talking about a different scheme coming forward. This falls within the remit of the outline permission.

“We're simply looking at a different provider of those service facilities. That outline permission runs with the land not with the original applicant.”

She went on to say: “On balance, we think we've come up with a scheme that does work. It's not absolutely ideal because it doesn't have those proportions of vernacular buildings but it does function.”

Cllr Patrick Coleman, CDC planning committee member, called the process ‘frustrating’ as much of the community had voiced opposition to the scheme as it stood but their ‘list of grounds for objections’ were being disregarded as ‘not a planning consideration’.

“What we are left with is what I think some of us shared when we saw this picture, which is: 'yuck'.”

He said ‘if we have any rights at all on this matter as a committee and any chance to do duty to the local people’ it should be ‘refused on the thing we are allowed to do, appearance and, to some extent, scale.’

He said the ‘appearance and massing’ is ‘incongruous and out of scale’ while the ‘excessive length and excessive uniformity’ all adds to something ‘unsuitable and inappropriate for an AONB gateway site’.

“What we have seen from this design is you cannot get on that site in a vernacular design what they need [McCarthy & Stone], as well as proper landscaping and proper car parking.”

Cllr David Fowles seconded his proposal with Cllr Mark Harris suggesting an addition be included meaning the applicant had to ‘engage with the community’.

He said: “I think the community should be involved in that process. I strongly urge the applicant to engage with the community to achieve a more satisfactory solution.”

Nine members voted in support of Cllr Coleman’s proposition to refuse the case officer’s recommendation, with five voting against.

Cllr Sue Coakley, CDC planning committee member, had argued in favour of the case officer.

She said: “The reality is, having an outline scheme for 44 extra care apartments, that function will drive the design.

“Although there may be concerns that this isn't the prettiest scheme, I think there would equally be concerns from the local community if a contemporary design had come forward.”