1 Habitats Regulations: harm to the Pebble Bed Heaths not ruled out, and avoidance not tried
A plan can be adopted only if an appropriate assessment shows no adverse effect on the protected heaths (Habitats Regulations 2017). Officers accept significant effects cannot be ruled out and mitigation looked unachievable; the legal order is avoid first, and removing high-traffic sites would bring impacts below Natural England’s thresholds – but that was declined.
…I had hoped that we would have that completely addressed by now and would be able to rule out significant effects on the Pebblebed Heaths in terms of air quality issues unfortunately that isn't the case…Ed Freeman, 25 November 2025, 00:17:37 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…the mitigation measures will not have to be as unachievable, shall we say…Ed Freeman, 3 March 2026, 00:44:10 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
we should be trying to avoid the impacts on the habitat first of all…Ed Freeman, 22 September 2026, 01:52:31 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…specific sites where if they were removed the impacts would come below the thresholds that Natural England guidance suggests is acceptable…Ed Freeman, 22 September 2026, 03:11:05 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
2 Not “justified”: EXMO20 failed the council’s own assessment and was allocated before the evidence
Soundness needs an appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence. EXMO20 failed the HELAA, was a rejected site at Regulation 18, and was allocated by members on 3 Sep 2024 while officers said further work was needed first; the access work came after the vote.
the allocated site failed the first HELAA assessment.Ed Freeman, 14 July 2026, 00:41:25 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…it was at that time a rejected site based on officers' assessments…Ed Freeman, 19 May 2025, 02:33:47 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…some further work would need to be done before we could put it in as a concrete fixed allocations…Ed Freeman, 3 September 2024, 00:12:58 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…following members favorable consideration of the site at that meeting officers further explored the site access arrangements…Ed Freeman, 14 July 2026, 00:21:11 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
3 Reasonable alternatives: replacements tested only in Exmouth
Plans must consider reasonable alternatives (SEA Regulations 2004 and soundness). Officers warned of this in 2024 and members were told there was no target for Exmouth, yet in 2025 the only replacement test for EXMO20 was other Exmouth sites.
…there are risks to the soundness of the plan if we don't consider all reasonable alternatives…Ed Freeman, 29 October 2024, 01:36:23 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
There was no target set for Exmouth…Cllr Olive (Chair), 29 October 2024, 02:46:08 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…if you included all the other rejected sites in exmo in place of EXMO20 you wouldn't make up 700Ed Freeman, 2 September 2025, 00:46:38 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
4 Not “effective”: access and sewage capacity unproven
An allocation must be deliverable. The essential B3179 access route is unknown and must cross the 400 m heaths zone; Maer Lane’s treatment capacity could not be assessed. In 2024 the officer’s own test for other sites was that access must be shown before allocating.
…we don't know where the access road would come in from from the B3179…Ed Freeman, 2 September 2025, 01:46:35 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…if you take that 400 meter zone out of the allocation then there's no access to that site…Ed Freeman, 25 November 2025, 00:56:50 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…they were quite clear that they just don't have the data…Ed Freeman, 3 March 2026, 01:55:13 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…All we need from them at this stage is to be satisfied that an access can be obtained…Ed Freeman, 29 October 2024, 01:27:08 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
5 The homes are not needed to meet the requirement
Officer-recommended sites already met the requirement before EXMO20 was added; the shortfall was only against an optional 10% headroom. The requirement then fell by 563 homes, and the 20% buffer does not raise the plan number.
…we only have a headroom position of 1.2 or 253 dwellingsEd Freeman, 3 September 2024, 00:13:35 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…that's that's that's up to members reallyEd Freeman, 3 September 2024, 00:19:19 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…equates to a fall of 563 homes…Ed Freeman, 2 September 2025, 00:33:52 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…the 20% buffer doesn't increase the housing number that we have to plan for in the Local Plan…Cllr Olive, Full Council 14 October 2026, 00:53:58 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
6 “Significant change” has no stated basis
Keeping EXMO20 rests on its removal being a “significant change”, but no threshold or definition was ever given, officers said removal was open to members, and the wording hardened over time.
…if we were taking out say a a site of only 10 houses in terms of the housing numbers it doesn't represent a massive problem because we gave ourselves headroom…Ed Freeman, 8 July 2025, 02:16:43 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…I'm not saying you can't do it I'm just advising you of the consequencesEd Freeman, 2 September 2025, 00:44:43 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…The removal of any allocation is likely to be a significant change…Ed Freeman, 22 September 2026, 00:49:24 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
7 How the evidence and the consultation were handled
The Regulation 19 plan went out with the HRA, water cycle and flood evidence known to be incomplete; responses were summarised by AI with a “general sense check”; the 3 Sep 2024 report showed land in error; the HRA deadline moved from “submission” to “adoption”.
…we knew we didn't have the water cycle study we knew that the HRA required some some further workEd Freeman, 8 July 2025, 01:47:06 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…we don't have to go through and check every individual one, but, you know, the general sense check.Ed Freeman, 3 March 2026, 00:58:38 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…included some land in error…Ed Freeman, 14 July 2026, 00:41:09 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
A compliant HRA is required at the point of plan adoption. It is not a legal requirement before then…Ed Freeman, 22 September 2026, 00:54:04 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
8 What committee members themselves said
Committee members have said the allocation should not have been made.
…it shouldn't have been included at the time. The officers themselves said it shouldn't be included.Cllr Ledger, 8 July 2025, 02:51:03 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
…not to say I like EXMO20 in any shape or form it shouldn't have been there…Cllr Howe, 8 July 2025, 03:19:57 · play the clip ▶ · about this meeting
Quotes come from machine transcripts. We've corrected misheard names and terms (for example “purple bed heaths” is shown as “Pebblebed Heaths”) and kept every other word as transcribed. “…” marks words left out of a longer remark. Speakers are identified from the recording. Play each clip before relying on it. Ed Freeman is the council's Assistant Director, Planning Strategy and Development Management. This page sets out the evidence; it isn't legal advice.