APPLICATION NO

	APPLICATION NO.	P24/V0261/RM
	SITE	Land at Crab Hill Land north of A417 and east of A338 Wantage
	PROPOSAL	A reserved matters application (access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for 115 dwellings and associated infrastructure, pursuant to application reference P23/V0134/O. (Outline application for a phased development for up to 669 residential units and Neighbourhood Centre (Use Class E and Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure and open space which is capable of coming forward in distinct and separate phases in a severable way.)
	AMENDMENTS	Amended by plans and information received 5 April 2024, 10 May 2024 and 18 June 2024.
	APPLICANT	Vistry Homes Limited
	APPLICATION TYPE	RESERVED MATTERS
	REGISTERED	1.2.2024
	TARGET DECISION DATE	20.6.2024
	PARISH	WANTAGE
	WARD MEMBER(S)	Andy Crawford Patrick O'Leary
	OFFICER	Stuart Walker

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

This application comes to Planning Committee as Wantage Town Council object to the proposal.

1.2

The application seeks Reserved Matters approval of layout, scale, appearance, access, and landscaping for 115 dwellings on the Crab Hill strategic site.

2.0	PROPOSAL
2.1	The proposal seeks approval for 115 dwellings with associated parking, open space, and landscaping. The site is divided into three parcels (the Crab Hill Central Phase in the approved phasing plan) and is bounded by the central park, and the primary school to the east.

	Site location plan
2.2	The proposed development has been designed and developed to accord with the approved masterplan, site wide strategy and design guidance documents. Dwellings are predominantly two storeys rising to three storeys in apartment blocks. There is a mix of 2 to 4 bed dwellings and 1 and 2 bed apartments, including 42 affordable (to accord with the approved housing delivery document). Parcels A and B are accessed via the major access road and Parcel C has access from the Loop Road, with tertiary street typology connections within each parcel (as defined in the site wide strategy).
2.3	The proposal has been amended to address comments from the Highway Authority, housing development team, waste management team, the police design advisor, ecology, tree, and urban design officers and the landscape architect. All plans and supporting documents accompanying the application are available to view online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk. The latest layout plans are attached at Appendix 2.

3.0	SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS
	Full versions of the representations can be found on the planning application pages on the council’s website www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk
3.1	Publicity
	This application has been publicised in accordance with Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and the Council’s procedures, including the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), December 2022.
3.2	Statutory Consultee responses

	Representation	Comments
	Wantage Town Council	May Amendment Objection – We were pleased to meet with the developer, and they were able to address some of our concerns. We also support comments made by the ecology officer. However, we still have the following issues and therefore maintain our objection: We wish to see a condition applied to visitor parking spaces to ensure that they will remain as visitor parking spaces regardless of ownership. (Officer note – this is not reasonable or enforceable and therefore fails the tests for applying planning conditions). We understand that the developers have tried to be sympathetic about overlooking but the land is significantly higher than originally planned which gives cause for concern. We believe overlooking will be a problem in some parts of the site. The height difference will result in the new houses dominating the existing properties. The existing drainage plan has failed, and resident’s gardens have been flooded. We have evidence that the existing drainage is not working and nothing in this application addresses the existing problems created by the development. Although they have not objected the drainage officer has made it clear they require further information. In light of climate change and the increased intensity and frequency of rainfall we request that the drainage plans be reviewed against predictions. The current drainage plan was based on the height levels in the outline application not on the height levels shown in this new plan. This gives us concern about run off from the development. We note the concern the of the police about lighting. Can this be addressed during winter months by back up provision? April Amendment No response. Original submission Objection – We have concerns about the parking arrangements, especially where they are at the rear of the property rather than at the side or the front. The parking areas are not well overlooked which raises concerns over security. We question the location of EV charging points, especially those inside garages which appear to be position to the rear of the garages. We require visitor parking to be provision a condition of planning permission. Cycle parking to the parking standards appears to be missing. Drainage plans need to be reviewed. There is concern over water runoff from the site. We note that the drainage ditch appears to be missing from the drawings. More detail is required on the relative heights of the landscaping and the buildings. The land for this development is at least 2m higher than existing properties. We need to see drawings for the site sections which demonstrate how they interact with existing buildings. We had expected a woodland buffer between the new development and the existing properties to mitigate overlooking. This appears to be missing. The range of trees for the development appears to be focused on two species. We wish to see a broader range of species included. We support to comments made by the Ecology officer and the Landscape Architect. We also support the comments made by the Waste Management officer regarding refuse locations and accessibility.
	Grove Parish Council	May Amendment No objection. April Amendment No objection. Original submission No objection.
	Oxfordshire County Council - Transport	June Amendment No objection, subject to conditions on parking and vision splays to accord with submitted plans. Comments on levels of parking provision. It is apparent that the proposals seek an overprovision in the overall number of allocated parking by 5 spaces and that several plots have been provided with parking above that required. It is therefore advised that these garages either be omitted from the proposals or designed in a manner which ensures that these cannot suitably accommodate a parked vehicle. Whilst I am satisfied with the number of visitor spaces proposed, most visitor parking bays in Parcels A and C are shown to directly front housing plots, as opposed to being designed into the carriageway. This is not favourable as it is likely to result in the perpendicular spaces (located off the adoptable carriageway) being occupied by residents of the fronting housing plots and being unavailable for visitors. (Officer note – the location and level of parking provision within this parcel is acceptable). May Amendment Holding objection – Revisions are required to vision splays, forward visibility, and parking. All new internal development layouts will require a 20mph speed limit and as such it is required that both junction and forward visibility splays of 25 metres (MfS) be provided and dedicated to OCC if they fall out of the highway boundary. Street furniture, parking bays or trees must not be positioned within junction or forward visibility splays. Although the revised submissions provide majority of junction visibility splays in line with OCC requirements, there are locations which still require resolution. The applicant should note that in the absence of the required forward visibility splays, these carriageways will not be adopted by OCC. Carriageways that are straight for over 70m will require horizontal or vertical traffic calming to ensure vehicle speeds are less than 20mph. I note from the revised submissions that the raised table located in Parcel B has now been omitted and is replaced with a build out. If a horizontal deflection is proposed, the applicant is required to provide priority give way build outs in both directions. The parking bay adjacent to plot 71 is not accepted for road safety reasons due to numerous shunting manoeuvres and is ultimately likely to result in vehicles having to reverse out onto the adoptable highway extent This parking space should therefore be relocated. Concerns are raised with the lack of turning space afforded to each parcel for servicing and delivery vehicles, specifically privately maintained shared surface carriageways. The submissions do not demonstrate service/delivery vehicles being able to suitably access, turn and exit the following locations in forward gear and as such the current design is likely to result in associated vehicles having to reverse extended distances. The must be addressed. Some plots make use of 2 tandem spaces and a garage (3 spaces in total) which exceeds the 2 spaces required under the adopted standards (which is based on an upper limit). The applicant will therefore need to either remove the proposed garages or reduce the garage dimensions accordingly, to ensure that a parked car cannot be accommodated for. April Amendment No response. Original submission Objection – There are numerous design issues that need resolving in relation to access / layout, parking, and pedestrian connectivity. An amended submission should be submitted, together with a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA), a parking schedule and an updated swept path analysis for 11.6m refuse vehicles.
	Oxfordshire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority	May Amendment Holding objection – This site only uses below ground storage which is not acceptable. The site can be re-arranged to use open ponds or swales, and this must be done. It is completely unacceptable to only have below ground storage; there will also be no bio-diversity gains on the site. Above ground storage and bio-diversity gains are essential. (Officer note – above ground storage is used throughout the wider site and is secured through the approved site wide drainage strategy). April Amendment No response. Original submission Objection – there is no information submitted relating to conditions 30 and 31. These drainage conditions should be considered in this RM submission.
	Thames Water	May Amendment No response. April Amendment No comments to make. Original submission No comments to make.
	Thames Valley Police – Crime Prevention Officer	May Amendment Comment – I maintain some concerns which I ask are addressed prior to permission being granted. Boundary treatments – I ask that prior to commencement of works above slab level, detailed specifications for all proposed boundary treatments must be provided and approved by the local planning authority. (Officer note – detail has already been provided through submitted drawings and can be controlled through an approved drawing condition). Lighting – I am pleased to see the applicant is willing to provide lighting within private parking courts, however I am fundamentally concerned with the proposed use of solar lighting. Particularly in winter months, or during periods of inclement weather, the solar yield is significantly decreased, leading to the risk that battery storage depletes which could result in insufficient lighting and pose safety risks for individuals using the parking courts. In addition. The unit will require maintenance over time and given the dependence on batteries, will become less and less effective as it ages. I do not feel solar technology is suitably robust or efficient to provide a suitable lighting solution over the lifetime of the development, and inevitably it will result in the parking court being unlit. I ask that all public lighting on roads and in parking courts is mains powered to ensure full lighting capability at all times. Street light columns must be located a sufficient distance from residential boundaries to prevent them being used as climbing aids to gain entry to rear gardens. I have concerns that the column alongside plots 3 and 4 is too close. April Amendment Holding objection – I have reviewed the amended submission and am pleased to see improvements to the scheme have been made since a constructive meeting with the applicants. Whilst I no longer object to the application, I maintain some concerns which I ask are addressed prior to permission being granted. Block structure – Parcel A to the east remains heavily dominated by almost entirely rear boundaries, and still no active surveillance is provided by the apartment block with no active windows (living rooms or kitchens) overlooking the parking area. Two dwellings now have windows overlooking the entrance to the parking are for plots 14 – 29 but I maintain concerns that there is not sufficient surveillance, particularly as areas of the car park are recessed from view. During the day there is some overlooking from the school, but into the evenings and at night this part of the development offers no surveillance. This parking court I note is enclosed with hedging to the east, however I recommend a formal boundary such as post and rail fencing is added to provide additional defence whilst hedging matures in the early years of the development. I recommend plot 108 is handed so that the living room window overlooks the rear of plots 101-107. Boundary treatments – I note 1.5m screen walls with 0.3m trellis toppers are proposed. The design of these must ensure they are difficult to climb. Rear access routes - Please bring forward the gate to remove the recess for plots 72 and 79. Please add an additional gate in line with the front of buildings 87 and 88 and update landscaping for rear access route. E&G meter boxes may remain where they are if smart meters are to be installed. Parking – some parking courts remain unlit; they must be lit with column lighting. Original submission Objection – I have fundamental concerns with the proposals in terms of the potential for crime and disorder, and for that reason I am unable to support this application in its current form. The proposed block layout and parking arrangements proposed leave the entire development at greatly elevated risk of crime and antisocial behaviour. This objection may be addressed by amendments and redesign of blocks and submission of further information. The Design and Access statement contains errors and makes inaccurate claims that are contradicted in the design submitted.
	Oxfordshire County Council – Archaeology	May Amendment No objection. April Amendment No response. Original submission No objection – there are no archaeological constraints to this application.
3.3	Council - professional officer comments

	Representation	Comments
	Drainage Engineer	April Amendment No objection - The drainage strategy has been suitably amended to reflect the requirements of the agreed outline Flood Risk Assessment with porous paving added to shared access drives. Further detailed design information will be required to enable drainage conditions to be discharged and we look forward to receipt of this at the relevant time. Original submission Holding objection - The approved Flood Risk Assessment for the outline application confirmed that porous paving would be used to provide at source water quality improvement and attenuation as part of the plot drainage. The strategy instead shows crates, which do not provide the same water quality benefit required. The drainage scheme should therefore be amended to suit the requirements of the agreed sitewide strategy.
	Air Quality Officer	May Amendment No further observations to make on the application providing the EV charging infrastructure requested in our consultation response on P23/V0134/O (17/03/23) is made available. (Officer Note – EV charging is provided in accordance with the requirements of the outline consent). April Amendment No further observations. Original submission No observations to make.
	Environmental Health – Contamination	May Amendment No observations. April Amendment No further observations. Potential for land contamination at the application site was previously investigated and no significant contamination identified. Original submission No observations.
	Environmental Health – Protection	May Amendment No objection – Having reviewed the submitted planning application and supporting documentation, I have extensively considered Environmental Protection matters related to noise, odour, and dust. I have considered the Street Lighting Design (Private Courtyards) (Ref 766/001) and Outdoor Lighting Report (Private Courtyards) (Ref 766_101), and from the supporting documentation submitted, I have no observations for this proposed development. April Amendment No objection – Given the location and orientation of the proposed dwellings in Parcels A, B and C, together with the noise mitigation provided as part of the design of the properties and gardens, and following review of the submitted Noise Assessment report, (dated 3 April 2024), which concludes predicted noise levels below 50 dB in the outside areas of each property, I can confirm the noise mitigation/insulation measures identified in the report are satisfactory. These noise mitigation/insulation measures should now be implemented, as per the findings of this noise assessment report. Original submission No objection – I have reviewed both the submitted Noise Assessment (NA) report, (17 January 2024), and the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), (ref. VHC/CHW/CEMP-A1 ) dated January 2024. Noise from roads is identified in the report as the principal area of concern and mitigation measures are proposed in section 4.2. The mitigation measures are considered acceptable to ensure levels of noise are maintained in accordance with BS8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings. These measures should be implemented and maintained in accordance with a scheme for the insulation of buildings, to be submitted to the LPA for approval, as per conditions 26 and 27 of the Decision Notice (P23/V0134/O). The CEMP satisfactorily addresses how matters relating to noise, and dust from traffic accessing the site, as well as movements on site, will be controlled. Plans for limiting construction noise, dust, vibration, and lighting, potentially affecting nearby residential areas, have also been effectively described. Measures described should be implemented in accordance with the CEMP.
	Landscape Architect	May Amendment No objection – I am satisfied that the provision of trees can be accommodated in association with the current layout. April Amendment Holding objection – Although the amended plans have addressed many of my concerns, there are still issues predominately with regards to tree planting, parking areas and boundary treatments. Original submission Holding objection – Currently the application contains many issues that need addressing in landscape terms. I also note that there are considerable areas of rear parking which impact on the appearance and overlooking of the street. The proposed railings for frontage of plots does not seem to fully link back into plots or extend in front and wrap around the flats to complete the street scene. Hedging takes time to establish and for flats that extra structure and security of railings is a benefit to the occupants and protects the hedge during establishment. It is not clear about the boundary treatment of the flats. I note that predominately fencing is proposed with 300mm trellis on top of fencing where parking is to the rear of properties. We would usually expect walling in these types of locations, a similar approach could also be used with walling combined with trellis. Walling is more robust, long-term treatment adjacent to communal areas. Street lighting has not been fully coordinated with the planting plans and some of the lighting column positions are clashing with tree planting locations. I could not see any service runs to be able to check that these are also coordinated with tree planting locations. The area around plots 101 to 107, is very hard with a poor relationship between the visitor parking and plot 107 and the relationship with plot 106 parking. It is unlikely that the proposed planting will be successful in this location. Only 5 species of trees have been proposed. There is a high proportion of Betula and Carpinus proposed, the Joint Design Guide, states that no more than 20% of planting should be of one species. More species diversity is required between plots 14 to 33. All 9 trees are proposed to be Carpinus. The plans indicate that tree pits of approximately 10 sqm are proposed, however the expected rooting volume of a Betula utilis jacquemontii requires 18m3 and Carpinus betulus Frans Fontaine 17m3 which is considerably more than the provided rooting volume. An increase of size of the tree pits is required and the provided volume should be marked on the plan where trees have restricted rooting volumes.
	Forestry Officer	May Amendment No objection. April Amendment No objection – An updated Arboricultural Method Statement (V1a) has been submitted to account for layout changes, there are no additional impacts to the existing treescape. However, further changes are required to demonstrate the indicated soil volumes will be sufficient to establish the proposed tree planting and will be practical to implement as currently shown on the plans. Further details are also required with relation to structured tree pits, demonstrating sufficient depth to provide the required soil volumes and compatibility to the surrounding infrastructure. It should be noted that there appear to be conflicts between the proposed drainage scheme and planting pits, these issues are likely to be resolved once the planting pits are located outside of the road footprint. As previously commented the service plans need to be shown on the landscape plans to demonstrate compatibility with the planting scheme. Drainage and other service runs, visibility splays and street lighting should all be shown on the landscaping plans. Original submission No objection – The submitted Arboricultural Method Statement provides adequate information, a condition should be attached requiring compliance with the tree protection measures. (Officer note – this is already included on the outline consent). I am supportive of the comments raised by the Landscape Officer, the proposed tree planting needs to incorporate a more diverse range of species to secure a robust treescape. The service plans need to be shown on the landscape plans to demonstrate compatibility with the planting scheme, this should not result in a reduction in the total number of trees to be planted if conflicts are identified. It is positive to see the provision of structured tree pits in the landscape plans, however further information is required to demonstrate there would be sufficient soil available to support establishment of the trees. Please can the total soil volumes for individual trees be shown on the landscape plans, this will need to include all trees planted in confined rooting environments.
	Ecology Officer	May Amendment Holding objection – the layout has been slightly revised resulting in different landscaping plans. To avoid any confusion to contractors implementing the LEMP, it is requested this document is updated with these latest plans. (Officer response – an updated LEMP document has now been provided). April Amendment No objection – the revised submission address previous issues. Original Plans Holding objection – amendments are needed relating to the proposed bat and bird boxes.
	Urban Design Officer	May Amendment No objection – comments have been addressed or provided with an explanation. Minor changes are required to boundary treatments. (Officer note – these have since been corrected). Surface treatment behind units 22 to 30 in Parcel A should be porous paving instead of tarmac as it is a back street that does not link with the overall street network and to reduce overall tarmac. (Officer note – tarmac is to be used as the road will be adopted). April Amendment Holding objection – overall, it is a move in the right direction (particularly Parcel B), and I appreciate the submission of the design compliance document to explain the rationale behind your decisions. However, there are a few adjustments that can still be made around landscaping in parking areas and boundary treatments. Original submission Objection - I would not be able to support this application unless the following issues are carefully considered, resolved, and presented as part of any future supporting documentation or design compliance statement. In summary, I suggest the design team: - Re-configures the different parcels to form clear and closed perimeter blocks. - Provides a balancing approach resulting in a variety of parking solutions, avoiding rear parking courts with no surveillance. - Carefully considers boundary treatments including low-level planning at the front of properties to demark the interface between public and private space. - Ensures corner units turn the corner successfully. - Checks compliance with the height parameter plan from the original outline. - Provides opportunities for street trees and meaningful landscaping throughout the proposal. - Carefully considers private amenity space for apartments. - Provides details of sustainability elements within the proposal. - Considers location of EV charging points. - Provides variety of surface treatments.
	Housing Development Team	May Amendment No objection - the applicant has addressed previous discrepancies highlighted around one missing 3-bedroom affordable home. The submitted plan now sufficiently reflects the affordable housing mix anticipated on this phase. Whilst the provision of 3-bedroom, 5 person units aligns with the legal agreement is acceptable in principle, it remains advised and preferable that the applicant explores the provision of 4-bedroom, 8 person homes to align with current eligibility criteria, and maximise bed spaces to future proof the affordable homes by ensuring a greater number of eligible households. (Officer note – the affordable housing provision in this phase is fully in accordance with requirements contained in the S106 legal agreement). As per the Section 106 agreement, affordable housing should be distributed evenly across the whole phase and not exceed clusters of 15 units or more. As previous, it remains advised that the applicant explore greater distribution of the affordable housing across all land parcels, in particularly, distributing units from indicated “Parcel A” and into indicated “Parcel B”. (Officer note – the affordable housing provision in this phase is fully in accordance with requirements contained in the S106 legal agreement). Parking – It remains advised and preferable that the applicant revise plans proposed for affordable parking plots 23 & 24. For management purposes it is advised that these spaces are situated with the rest of the parking spaces for affordable homes, rather than mixed in with parking provision for general market units as currently proposed. April Amendment Objection – the submitted information presents a reduction in affordable units. Original submission Holding objection – amendments to parking for affordable units is required. The tenure of affordable housing units proposed on this phase comprises entirely Affordable Rented housing which accords with the site wide approved housing delivery document. As per the Section 106 agreement, affordable housing should be distributed evenly across the whole phase and not exceed clusters of 15 units or more. It is advised that the applicant explore greater distribution of the affordable housing across all land parcels, in particularly, distributing units from indicated “Parcel A” and into indicated “Parcel B”. Affordable housing should be designed in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the market housing. All proposed affordable houses have been sufficiently provided with individually allocated garden space. Parking - parking provision proposed in indicative parcels “B” and “C” propose a significant amount of court style parking. Where possible, parking courts should be avoided with parking spaces provided either on-plot or adjacent to the properties. Parking provision as currently proposed could lead to prospective occupants parking in unallocated areas and curb sides in closer proximity to property frontages. It is advised the applicant revises the plans to avoid such eventualities. Similarly, with reference to plots 28-30, it is advisable the applicant explores provision of parking spaces in closer proximity to the properties. Under current (directly off street) arrangements, such provision risks spaces not being within the immediate proximity of the relevant properties and being unintentionally used by visitors.
	Waste Management Team	May Amendment No further comments. April Amendment No objection – Plans now show unimpeded refuse vehicle movement around site. I also note acceptable bin collection points and bin stores. Original submission Holding objection - Crew walking distances to collection points must be no more than 25m. the collection point at plots 55-56 exceeds this. Please site the bin collection point closer to the collection vehicle access. Presentation points for plots 14-21, 28-33, 86-90 and 101-107 all shown as parking spaces. Please show where the bins will be presented so they don’t obstruct cars or the pavement. Please ensure there are dropped kerbs on bulk bin routes from pavement to road within 25m of bin stores 7-13, 60-65 and 91-100. Reverse at rear of plot 20 vehicle is shown touching fence, no space to rear due to clearance and planting for crew to stand behind and reverse vehicle. Please ensure there is enough space to turn the vehicle safely. Driving forward into vegetation outside plots 22-27 vehicle needs more space please ensure the vehicle does not need to swing into or over vegetation anywhere. The collection vehicle is shown driving over pavement next to parking spaces 15/16 please ensure that the vehicle can make the turn at the junction without having to mount the kerb edges. Communal Bin Storage - the plans do not show the correct allocation of bins for various properties and need amendment. Bin store access needs to be such that bins can be removed without taking them all out with enough space for an 1100lt bin to move around another to exit out the door. The shape of bin stores needs to be changed to make it wider for better access to move the bins in and out.
3.4	Public responses

	Representation	Comments
	Residents	May Amendment The Wantage and Grove Campaign Group maintain their objection on the grounds that the ground levels approved in application P21/V2546/RM seem to be being ignored and have been raised in this application. The planning committee which approved the earlier application spend time discussing the ground levels and they have been totally ignored with no attempt made to stick to them. The levels in this application are significantly higher and must be reduced. The drainage applications have been approved in conjunction with previously approved levels and given the recent increases in short, sharp, heavy showers and increased rainfall this could significantly increase the impact on homes in Charlton Heights. We have seen on other parts of Crab Hill where the landscape buffers between existing residents and the new development have been eroded or removed by new residents and the impact of the increased levels in this application with the possibility of removal of the buffer will reduce the privacy of existing residents. This is not acceptable. April Amendment One letter of objection received stating previous comments still stand but we are now even more concerned with the revised plans as the amount of water stored in crates is almost double and closer to our house. Due to the clay subsoil the water cannot soak away so tends to stay in the topsoil, which could cause our garden to flood and be very boggy. We are also concerned about subsidence due to the above. The Wantage and Grove Campaign Group object on the grounds that the ground levels approved in application P21/V2546/RM seem to be being ignored and have been raised in this application. The Applicant should provide the equivalent cross-sections to those included in the initial application to ensure that the conditions as approved are being met. Original submission Four letters of objection were received raising concerns on: · Overlooking – new houses being on higher land · Flood risk – concern runoff from new housing will overwhelm the French drain and open ditch and lead to flooding of existing properties. · Traffic management - drawings indicate all construction traffic going through the Bus Gate on the junction of A417 and Elder Way. Since residents are not allowed to use that entrance, it would surely be proper for construction traffic to access the sites from the new WELR from either the A417 or Mably way direction. Drawings should be amended to reflect the new access arrangements. (Officer note – construction traffic routing has been amended). · Too many houses and lack of infrastructure (Officer note – these are not material considerations at Reserved Matters stage)

4.0	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1	Application Number	Description of development	Decision and date
	P23/V1296/RM	Reserved Matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to P21/V2544/FUL for proposed Central Park including sports pitches, equipment and pavilion, upgrade works to the route of the former BOAT and pedestrian route to A338 and discharge of Conditions 8 (reserved matters), 17(CEMP), 19 (Energy Delivery Strategy), 20 (Energy Efficiency), 21 (Landscaping), 24(Landscaping Maintenance schedule), 31 (LEMP), 33 (Contamination), 34 (Site lighting/floodlights), 35 (WMMS), 37 (drainage), 38 (off-site drainage) and 53 (BREEAM) of P21/V2544/FUL for this phase (as amended by plans received 7 August 2023, 31 August 2023 and 27 November 2023).	Approved (11/01/2024)
	P23/V0134/O	Outline application for a phased development for up to 669 residential units and Neighbourhood Centre (Use Class E and Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure and open space which is capable of coming forward in distinct and separate phases in a severable way.	Approved (02/11/2023)
	P23/V1900/PEJ	A reserved matters application for 115 dwellings and associated infrastructure.	Advice provided (17/10/2023)
	P21/V2546/RM	Construction of new road carriageways (Grove Road Loop Road and Major Access Road), footways, cycleways; Reprofiling of land for development, Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) swales and associated earthworks, and Hard and soft landscaping throughout the site, particularly within the Country Park (northern area of the site) and the park within the Grove Road Loop Road (as amended by plans received 30 November 2021, 17 December 2021 and amended by plans and information received 17 March 2022 and 25 April 2022).	Approved (27/06/2022)
	P21/V2544/FUL	Variation of condition 1 (Specified Layout & Form) in application P19/V1269/FUL. There is a need to change the parameter plans and thus condition 1 is required to be amended.	Approved (14/01/2022)
	P19/V1269/FUL	Variation of conditions 1(approved plans), 7(Housing Delivery Document), and 17(phasing plan) of planning permission P17/V0652/FUL	Approved (22/08/2019)
	P18/V2787/RM	Reserved Matters application for infrastructure works including internal roads, car parking, landscaping of open spaces and the civic square. As amended by plans received 28 January 2019. As amended by plans received 6 February 2019.	Approved (28/02/2019)
	P17/V0652/FUL	Variation of Conditions 1 (amended parameter plans), 33 (additional land to be included within the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation) and 52 (vehicle access) of Planning Permission P13/V1764/O (as amended by letter received 23 March 2017).	Approved (27/11/2017)
	P13/V1764/O	Outline application for residential development of up to 1500 dwellings including new employment space (use class B1), a neighbourhood centre/community hub (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C2, D1 and D2), new primary school, central park, ancillary areas (including allotments and sports pitches) with access off the A338 Grove Road and three accesses off the A417 Reading Road. Provision of a strategic link road between the A417 and the A338 Road to be known as the Wantage Eastern Link Road (WELR). All matters reserved except means of access to the development and the WELR.	Approved (13/07/2015)

5.0

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1

A Reserved Matters application is considered a new application for planning permission under the 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The outline application was EIA development and was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and an addendum update statement, and the following areas of potential impact were addressed: landscape and visual impact; transport; historic environment; ecology and nature conservation; water resources and flood risk; noise; air quality; socio-economic impacts; cumulative effects and residual effects and mitigation.

5.2

It is considered this Reserved Matters application falls within the ambit of the approved ES, and a further addendum is not required for this application.

6.0	POLICY & GUIDANCE
6.1	National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance
6.2	Development Plan Policies
	Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (LPP1) Policies CP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CP03 - Settlement Hierarchy CP04 - Meeting Our Housing Needs CP07 - Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services CP15 - Spatial Strategy for South East Vale Sub-Area CP32 - Retail Development and other Main Town Centre Uses CP33 - Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP38 - Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Sites CP39 - The Historic Environment CP40 - Sustainable Design and Construction CP42 - Flood Risk CP43 - Natural Resources CP44 - Landscape CP45 - Green Infrastructure CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity A Regulation 10A review for Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) has been completed, evaluating LPP1’s policies for their consistency with national policy, considering current evidence and any relevant changes in local circumstances. The review shows that five years on, LPP1 (together with LPP2) continues to provide a suitable framework for development in the Vale of White Horse that is in overall conformity with government policy.
	Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (LPP2) Policies DP16 - Access DP17 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans DP21 - External Lighting DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity DP24 - Effect of Neighbouring or Previous Uses on New Developments DP25 - Noise Pollution DP26 - Air Quality DP27 - Land Affected By Contamination DP28 - Waste Collection and Recycling DP36 - Heritage Assets DP39 - Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments
6.3	Emerging Joint Local Plan 2041 The Council is preparing a Joint Local Plan covering South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, which when adopted will replace the existing local plan. Currently at the Regulation 18 stage, the Joint Local Plan Preferred Options January 2024 has limited weight when making planning decisions. The starting point for decision taking will remain the policies in the current adopted plan.
6.4	Neighbourhood Plan
	In 2016, the independent examiner inspecting the Wantage Neighbourhood Plan recommended that the plan shouldn’t proceed to a referendum. A revised neighbourhood plan has yet to be submitted. Accordingly, no weight can be given to this plan.
6.5	Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
	Joint Design Guide SPD 2022: The Joint Design Guide sets out design principles to guide future development and encourage a design-led approach to development. Developer Contributions – Delivering Infrastructure to Support Development SPD 2017: The Developer Contributions SPD was adopted on 30 June 2017 and provides guidance on how planning obligations will work alongside CIL to deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in the Vale.

7.0	PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1	The relevant planning considerations are the following: · Principle of Development · Reserved Matters o Layout - Residential amenity - Open space o Appearance and Scale - Materials o Landscaping o Access · Technical Matters o Flood Risk and drainage o Ecology o Crime Prevention
	Principle of Development
7.2	Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this case comprises of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (the LPP1) and the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (the LPP2).
7.3	The site is allocated for development in the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031, Part 1 and outline permission was granted in July 2015 with variations to parameter plans permitted in November 2017, August 2019, and January 2022. There are no material changes in planning policy and the established principle of the proposal remains acceptable.
	Reserved Matters
7.4	The NPPF considers the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work, and helps make development acceptable to communities. Numerous local plan policies seek to ensure high quality developments and to protect the amenities of neighbouring uses (Policies CP37, CP38, DP23 and DP24). The Council’s adopted design guide aims to raise the standard of design across the district.
7.5	To that end, a site wide design guide and masterplan has been produced and approved for the Crab Hill site. Within the site’s design guide, six ‘character areas’ have been identified with key design guidance specific to each area. Central Parcel is covered by two areas: A North Entrances / Arrival (small area to west) D Across the BOAT (area to south and east)
7.6	Character areas do not generally change across a street and overlap with adjacent areas where there are common features and elements. The North Entrances character area seeks consideration of arrival vistas and views and clearly defined street section with pedestrian route, soft landscape verge and street tree planting with predominantly stone / warm render with brick detailing around quoins and windows with red clay roof tiles to reflect the Grove character to the north. The Across the BOAT character area seeks to visually link both sides of the BOAT as a complete street elevation with consistent boundary treatments, a variety in building forms, widths, and ridge heights, including steep pitched gables, with a mix of stone / warm render, brick, and a mix of red and dark roofs.
	Layout
7.7	The layout as amended is acceptable. The density of this phase accords with the approved parameter plan. The layout is based around a clearly defined network of informal streets and dwellings have been designed / positioned to front roads with private amenity space to the rear, to provide a coherent environment for all users and a sense of enclosure. The spread of affordable housing (and Cat2 M4 housing) within this application is acceptable. There is a mix of on street parking, on plot parking and garaging and bin and cycle storage can be accommodated within the plot for each dwelling, with dedicated bin and cycle storage for flats. The layout responds positively to principles of site design guidance with the mix of character areas and ‘key corners’, including fronting the major access road and the Loop Road with larger scale buildings. The proposal accords with policies CP37 and CP38.
7.8	Residential amenity Policy DP23 of LPP2 seeks to ensure that development proposals demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses when considering both individual and cumulative impacts in terms of loss of privacy, daylight, sunlight or outlook, or through noise disturbance.
7.9	Policy DP24 of LPP2 states that development proposals should be appropriate to their location and should be designed to ensure that the occupiers of new development will not be subject to adverse effects from existing or neighbouring uses.
7.10	When considering the impact on amenity of applications for new dwellings it is necessary to assess the impact on existing neighbours and the intended occupiers.
7.11	Wantage Town Council and a neighbouring property have objected to the development on the basis that the new dwellings will cause a loss of privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties due to a change in levels between existing properties in Aldworth Avenue and the application site.
7.12	The layout provides an appropriate design response to adjoining development and accords with design guidance parameters to maintain privacy. The increase in levels is not considered harmful to existing neighbours and this is demonstrated on the section drawings attached at Appendix 2. Proposed boundary treatments and noise mitigation measures for new occupants are considered acceptable. Officers are satisfied the proposal would not have any adverse impact upon the living conditions for existing and future residents to warrant refusal of the application. Overall, the proposal is considered compliant with the site wide design strategy, the council’s adopted joint design guide principles and accords with policies DP23 and DP24 of LPP2.
7.13	Open space The application does not propose areas of public open space, as these will be located elsewhere within the wider development in accordance with the approved land use and landscape parameter plans. Each dwelling has adequately sized private amenity space. The proposal therefore accords with policy DP33.
	Appearance and Scale
7.14	The proposed development is acceptable. The design of all the external elements of the proposal is considered to make a positive contribution to its appearance, with attractive design, form, and scale, together with the proposed materials, landscape treatment and the relationship of the buildings within their environment.
7.15	Materials The proposed materials of brick and render with tiled roofs are acceptable. They are similar as approved materials for adjoining phases, currently under construction and accord with the site wide design guidance.
	Landscaping
7.16	Policy CP44 of LPP1 confirms that key features that contribute to the nature and quality of the district’s landscape will be protected from harmful development, and where possible enhanced. Where development is acceptable in principle, proposals will need to demonstrate how they have responded to landscape character and incorporate appropriate landscape proposals. Policy DP33 of LPP2 requires major development to provide 15% of the site as public open space.
7.17	A detailed landscaping scheme is submitted with this application. The content of the scheme is acceptable. The Landscape Architect and the Tree Officer have assessed the proposal and raise no objections to the amended plans. The proposal accords with policy CP44 of LPP1.
	Access
7.18	Site access was established under the Crab Hill masterplan. Access into the site is taken from the Major Access Road and has previously been approved with construction complete. The Highway Authority has assessed the latest proposal and raises no objection in respect of highway safety and vehicle ingress / egress or vehicle circulation within the site. The proposal accords with policy DP16.
7.19	Parking The Highway Authority comments that parking provision for some plots with tandem spaces and a garage is above newly adopted standards. Officers consider parking provision throughout the site is acceptable and the overprovision on some plots is not a reason to withhold permission.
	Technical Matters
7.20	Flood Risk and drainage Core Policy 42 of LPP1 seeks to ensure that development provides appropriate measures for the management of surface water as an essential element of reducing future flood risk to both the site and its surroundings.
7.21	A sustainable drainage scheme has been submitted and, following amendment, the drainage engineer has no objection. The parish and neighbours have raised concerns that due to changes in levels there is a risk of runoff, and that this application should be solving existing drainage problems that have occurred on site. These are not issues for a Reserved Matters application to solve. As the drainage engineer has raised no concerns about the drainage scheme proposed in this application any existing drainage problems elsewhere in the development is not a reason to withhold approval of Reserved Matters.
7.22	The Lead Local Flood Authority requests to see drainage conditions imposed on the outline consent discharged now. This is not necessary as further detail on drainage can be submitted at a future date to ensure compliance with those conditions. Such information will also take account of climate change as highlighted by the Town Council. Overall, the level of drainage information provided for this Reserved Matters application is acceptable and the drainage engineer has no objection. The proposal is compliant with policy CP42.
7.23	Ecology Policy CP46 of LPP1 requires development to avoid losses in biodiversity and actively seeks net gains.
7.24	The ecology officer raises no objection to the amended proposal. The applicant has submitted an updated Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) to align with the latest submitted drawings and the landscape management proposals are appropriate and should ensure that the landscaping is properly maintained. The proposal is compliant with local plan policies CP44 and CP46.
7.25	Crime prevention The Thames Valley Police Design Adviser raised objections to the original layout but following layout amendments, no longer objects. The adviser has however commented that solar lighting should be avoided and for lighting columns to be set away from boundaries to prevent climbing. Officers are satisfied the layout as submitted provides an acceptable design response to deter crime when balanced against urban design principles and design quality of the proposal and further amendment is not required. Similarly, the concerns raised by the Town Council on rear parking do not warrant refusal of the proposal. Where such parking is used it is due to those plots needing to front onto the main street and officers are satisfied there is adequate surveillance throughout the layout to ensure rear parking spaces are acceptable.

8.0	Other Relevant Legislation
8.1	Human Rights Act 1998 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
8.2	Equality Act 2010 In determining this planning application, the Council has regard to its equality obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
8.3	Crime and Disorder Act 1998 In considering this application, due regard has been given to the likely effect of the proposal on the need to reduce crime and disorder in accordance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In reaching a recommendation, officers consider that the proposal will/will not undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety.

9.0	PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
9.1	This application has been assessed against the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and all other material planning considerations. In considering the application, due regard has been given to the representations received from statutory and other consultees. These have been considered in assessing the overall scheme.
9.2	The site is allocated in the adopted local plan and there is an extant outline planning permission on the site for a mixed-use development of up to 1500 dwellings with associated uses and which requires provision of the development which is the subject of this Reserved Matters application. Reserved Matters have also been previously approved for adjoining parcels of development and are under construction.
9.3	The Reserved Matters details submitted in this application are acceptable. Subject to the recommended conditions, the application should be approved.

10.0

RECOMMENDATION

To approve the Reserved Matters, subject to the following conditions:

1. Approved plans.

2. Vision splays in accordance with approved plans.

3. Parking provision in accordance with approved plans.

4. Cycle parking in accordance with approved plans.

Informative

1. The applicant is reminded of the obligation of compliance with the

relevant conditions on the outline application that apply to this

phase (e.g., CEMP & LEMP implementation, noise mitigation and

tree protection).

The full wording of conditions is set out at Appendix 1.

Stuart Walker

Email: planning@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Tel: 01235 422600

Appendix 1

Recommended Conditions (full text):

Sequence	Description	Details
1	Approved Plans	That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans and documents, Site Location Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0201-D5-P3 Site Layout Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0230-D5-P6 External Materials and Boundary Treatments Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0231-D5-P7 Surface Materials Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0232-D5-P7 Affordable Tenure Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0233-D5-P6 Refuse Management Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0234-D5-P6 Parking Strategy and EV Charging Point Plan WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0235-D5-P6 Housetype Plans - 3x1BF and 3x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0105-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - 3x1BF and 3x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0106-D5-P2 Housetype Elevations - 3x1BF and 3x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0107-D5-P2 Housetype Plans - 3x1BF and 7x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0108-D5-P2 Housetype Plans - 3x1BF and 7x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0109-D5-P2 Housetype Plans - 3x1BF and 7x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0110-D5-P2 Housetype Elevations - 3x1BF and 7x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0111-D5-P2 Housetype Elevations - 3x1BF and 7x2BF WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0112-D5-P2 Housetype Plans - 7xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0113-D5-P4 Housetype Plans - 7xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0114-D5-P4 Housetype Plans - 7xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0115-D5-P2 Housetype Elevations - 7xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0116-D5-P3 Housetype Elevations - 7xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0117-D5-P4 Housetype Plans - 3xAF1 and 3xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0118-D5-P3 Housetype Plans - 3xAF1 and 3xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0119-D5-P3 Housetype Elevations - 3xAF1 and 3xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0120-D5-P3 Housetype Elevations - 3xAF1 and 3xAF2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0121-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Cooper_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0125-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Cooper_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0126-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Alwin_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0127-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Becket Rear Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0128-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Becket Rear Patio_V2 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0129-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Becket Side Patio_V2 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0130-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - S325_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0132-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X307 Rear Patio_V1 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0133-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X307 Rear Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0134-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X307 Rear Patio_V2 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0135-D5-P4 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X307 Side Patio_V1 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0136-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X307 Side Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0137-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X308_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0139-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X308_V2 Render WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0140-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X413 Rear Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0141-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X413 Side Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0142-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X414_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0143-D5-P1 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X414_V2 Render WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0144-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X417 Side Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0145-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - X418_V2 Render WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0146-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Asher_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0150-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Alwin V_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0151-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Alwin V_V1 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0152-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Garages WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0160-D5-P1 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Bins and Bikes Storage WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0161-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Cooper FG_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0170-D5-P1 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Cooper FG_V1 Boarding WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0171-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Cooper FG_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0172-D5-P1 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Alwin V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0174-D5-P2 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Alwin V_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0175-D5-P3 Housetype Plans and Elevations - Becket Rear Patio_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0176-D5-P1 Housetype Plans and Elevations – Becket Side Patio_V2 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0177-D5-P1 Housetype Plans and Elevations – Spiers_V1 WANCP-MCB-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0178-D5-P1 Drainage Strategy Technical Note PJS22-077-DOC-05 B Planning Stage Drainage and Levels Strategy DR-400 C Internal Layout Geometry Plan 23-0544-TP-5000-P04 Internal Layout Visibility Plan 23-0544-TP-5001-P06 Landscape Management Plan LA5792-LMP-01 Parcel A – Soft Landscaping IDPL LA5792-BP-400K Parcel B – Soft Landscaping IDPL LA5792-BP-401K Parcel C – Soft Landscaping IDPL LA5792-BP-402J Arboricultural Method Statement 240111 23104 AMS V1a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan 11968.LEMP.vf4 Construction Environmental Management Plan April 2024 Street Lighting Design 721-001 Rev A Street Lighting Schedule 721-001 Rev B Outdoor Lighting Report 4 April 2024 Street Lighting Design (Private Courtyards) 766/001 Outdoor Lighting Report (Private Courtyards) 766_101 except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. Reason: To secure the proper planning of the area in accordance with Development Plan policies.
2	Vision splays	Prior to the use or occupation of any dwellings within a parcel (A, B or C), the vehicular accesses and visibility splays for that parcel as shown on approved drawing number 23-0544-RAP-XX-XX-DR-TP-5001 Rev P06 shall be provided. Thereafter, the visibility splays shall be permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision. Reason: In the interest of highway safety (Policy CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Policy DP16 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2).
3	Parking provision	Prior to the use or occupation of each dwelling within the new development, the car parking spaces serving that dwelling, as shown on approved drawing number WANCP MCB ZZ ZZ DR A 0235 Rev P6, shall be constructed, surfaced and marked out. The parking spaces shall be constructed to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway. Thereafter, the parking spaces shall be kept permanently free of any obstruction to such use. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to avoid localised flooding (Policies CP35, CP37 and CP42 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Policy DP16 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2).
4	Cycle parking	Prior to the use or occupation of each dwelling within the new development, the bicycle parking serving that dwelling shall be provided in accordance with the details shown on approved drawing number WANCP MCB ZZ ZZ DR A 0235 Rev P6. Reason: To encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport (Policies CP33, CP35 and CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1).
Informative		The applicant is reminded of the obligation of compliance with the relevant conditions on the outline application that apply to this phase (e.g., CEMP & LEMP implementation, noise mitigation and tree protection).