Agenda item

Proposed erection of two new car dealerships / showrooms for occupation by Lancaster Porsche and Aston Martin (sui generis) incorporating (i) the sale of new and used cars plus parts storage and sales (ii) new means of access from the A505 including provision of a protected right turn lane into the site when approaching from the west, (iii) totem signs, (iv) servicing and MOT areas, (v) washing and car preparation / valet areas, (vi) display, staff and customer car parking, (vii) new internal circulation roads, cycle paths and footpaths, and (viii) hard and soft landscaping including provision of a 1.5m high mound on the western site boundary.

The Committee unanimously refused the application for the three reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, and for three additional reasons of there being insufficient information to demonstrate that

·         the development would be acceptable in highway safety terms

·         the development would not cause an increased risk of flooding

·         habitats of importance would be protected as a result of the proposed development.

Members visited the site on 11 June 2019.

The case officer updated the report following the receipt of comments relating to highways and transport, drainage and ecology.

Colin Brown (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Harris (Duxford Parish Council) addressed the meeting. The case officer reported that Councillor Peter McDonald (local Member) had recommended that the application be refused.

Members commented on the following:

·         The application was for development of a Greenfield site

·         The failure to identify an alternative site was concerning

·         Traffic issues

·         Adverse impact on the landscape

·         The proposed site had not been allocated in the Local Plan 2018

·         Highway safety

·         The potential for flooding

·         Incursion into the ‘green separation’ between Duxford and Whittlesford

·          

The Committee unanimously refused the application for the three reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, and for three additional reasons of there being insufficient information to demonstrate that

·         the development would be acceptable in highway safety terms

·         the development would not cause an increased risk of flooding

·         habitats of importance would be protected as a result of the proposed development.