1 Habitats Regulations: harm to the Pebblebed Heaths has not yet been ruled out

The facts. A local plan can only be adopted if an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations 2017 concludes it will not adversely affect the integrity of protected sites such as the Pebblebed Heaths. At that appropriate-assessment stage, the council's own Habitats Regulations Assessment (November 2025) says there is “not yet sufficient certainty to rule out adverse effects on integrity” from air quality on the Heaths. Officers have said that removing specific sites could bring impacts below Natural England's thresholds; the draft minutes of 22 September 2026 record that this “could theoretically be assessed”, but that the focus was on understanding impacts as a whole.

Our view. National policy and good practice favour avoiding harm first and relying on mitigation only where avoidance isn't possible; the Habitats Regulations also require alternatives to be considered before a plan that could harm a protected site is approved on public-interest grounds. Removing EXMO20, whose traffic would use the B3179 beside the Heaths, is an avoidance option that should be tested before the plan relies on mitigation that has not yet been secured.

What was said:

2 Not “justified”: EXMO20 failed the council's own assessment and was added before the evidence

The facts. EXMO20 failed the council's HELAA site assessment (the council's own minutes use those words), was consulted on as a “rejected” site in 2022, and the officers' report of August 2024 recommended “No” to allocating the whole site. Members allocated it on 3 September 2024, when officers said further work would be needed first; the work on access came after that vote. The council says the later work showed the access problem could be addressed.

Our view. Failing the HELAA doesn't by itself stop a site ever being allocated. But a sound plan needs a strategy based on proportionate evidence, and here the decision came before the evidence rather than following from it.

What was said:

3 Reasonable alternatives: replacements for EXMO20 were only looked at in Exmouth

The facts. Plans must consider reasonable alternatives (the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, and the soundness tests). In October 2024 officers warned of risks to soundness if all reasonable alternatives weren't considered, and members were told there was no housing target set for Exmouth. In September 2025, the replacement figures officers gave members for EXMO20 were based on other Exmouth sites. Officers also said other new-community proposals conflicted with the agreed strategy and would not add deliverable homes.

Our view. If Exmouth has no target of its own, replacements for EXMO20 should be tested across the district, not only within Exmouth. We have not seen an assessment that does that.

What was said:

4 Not “effective”: a workable access route and the sewage evidence have not yet been shown

The facts. An allocation must be deliverable. In September 2025 an officer said “we don't know where the access road would come in from from the B3179”, and the road would have to cross the 400 m protection zone around the Heaths. The draft policy also allows “modest levels of development” in the southern parts of the site to be reached from Southern Wood, a residential street on the site's southern edge (policy SD01, November 2025, p.88, document); in September 2026 an officer confirmed that “the draft local plan continues to allow for modest levels of development to be accessed this way”. “Modest” is not defined. On sewage, the November 2025 Water Cycle Study says Maer Lane treatment works has capacity, and South West Water has said there is headroom until upgrades due in 2028. But in March 2026 an officer said the consultants did not have data on Maer Lane's biological treatment capacity and used records of sewage spills instead, and the Environment Agency says the study does not yet show the planned growth can be delivered sustainably. The study is being re-modelled. In 2024 officers' own test for other sites was that access should be shown before allocating.

Our view. Access is not shown to be impossible, and sewage capacity is not shown to be inadequate. But neither has yet been demonstrated, and a plan should not allocate a site on the hope that both will be solved later.

What was said:

5 Heritage: harm to the setting of a grade II* listed church

The facts. The church of St John in the Wilderness is listed grade II*, the second-highest grade, and in an officer's words lies “at the heart of the site”. Historic England, the government's heritage adviser, marked EXMO20 “Unsound” in both consultations. In March 2025 it said development “could result in considerable harm to the setting of this building, which the NPPF identifies as an asset of the highest significance”, and warned that the long access road from the B3179 “could itself result in significant harm to the setting”. In January 2026 it said the council's heritage assessment “does not represent a robust assessment” of the harm, “critically failing to consider impact on tranquillity”, and suggested restricting development to the southern part of the site. Devon County Council has asked for a full heritage and archaeological assessment, citing prehistoric finds on the higher ground to the north. The council says its heritage analysis shows the site can take the planned homes while respecting its most sensitive parts.

Our view. National policy gives great weight to conserving heritage assets of the highest significance, and says any harm to them needs clear and convincing justification. Historic England has not withdrawn its objection, and the detailed heritage assessment it asks for has been left to a future planning application.

Sources: Historic England, letters of 30 March 2025 (document) and 23 January 2026 (document); Devon County Council, letter of 22 January 2026 (document, p.14). More on the evidence page.

What was said:

6 Housing numbers: the plan met its requirement without the full 700-home allocation

The facts. On 3 September 2024 officers told members that the sites they had recommended gave a headroom of 1.2% (253 homes) above the housing requirement. Those recommendations included only a 150-home southern part of the site (Exmo_20b), not the whole 700-home allocation. The shortfall was against the 10% headroom officers aim for, which they described as standard practice; it is not a legal requirement. In September 2025 the requirement fell by 563 homes, which officers advised keeping as extra headroom. The council says its plan is already below the government's full standard-method figure and its five-year land supply is 3.16 years, and that this supports keeping its allocations.

Our view. Whether EXMO20 is needed is a judgement about how much headroom to keep, not a fixed requirement, and that judgement should weigh the evidence on the Heaths, access and sewage.

What was said:

7 “Significant change”: we have found no published definition

The facts. Keeping EXMO20 has been justified on the basis that removing it would be a “significant change” to the plan. In July 2025 an officer said taking out a small site “doesn't represent a massive problem because we gave ourselves headroom”, In September 2025, on a change on the scale of EXMO20, an officer said “that's the kind of scale … where i think we really have a problem”, adding “i'm not saying you can't do it i'm just advising you of the consequences”. In September 2026 an officer said “The removal of any allocation is likely to be a significant change”.

Our view. We have not found a definition or threshold for “significant change” in the council's committee papers or in the published guidance we have checked, and the council has not said why removing EXMO20 would cross it. We are asking the council for its definition (our questions).

What was said:

8 How the evidence and the consultation were handled

The facts. The Regulation 19 plan went out for consultation while officers knew the Water Cycle Study and the Habitats Regulations Assessment needed further work. Responses were summarised with AI, which an officer said was checked by a “general sense check” rather than response by response. Specific errors have been acknowledged: a petition with over 80 signatures was recorded as a single letter, the AI declaration in a feedback report gave the wrong dates, and the 3 September 2024 report included land in error. Officers now say a compliant Habitats Regulations Assessment is required at the point of adoption.

Our view. Using AI to summarise responses is not wrong in itself. Our concern is whether, with incomplete evidence and errors in the summaries, members could give conscientious consideration to the 2,700-plus responses on EXMO20, as a fair consultation requires.

What was said:

9 What committee members themselves said

The facts. Some members of the Strategic Planning Committee have said in committee that EXMO20 should not have been included. Their words are below; please play each clip for the full context.

What was said:

What the experts said

These are the government's adviser on nature, two leading conservation charities and the government's heritage adviser, responding to the council's consultations on the plan.

Natural England

Natural England's January 2026 comments are about the plan as a whole. Devon County Council's traffic forecast puts 2,235 of the 2,536 extra vehicles a day on the B3179, which runs beside the Heaths, down to EXMO20, assuming its main access is from the B3179 (FOI reply). In 2025 Natural England asked for a natural buffer along the B3179 rather than objecting to the site outright.

RSPB

Devon Wildlife Trust

Historic England

The council's own Habitats Regulations Assessment

For balance: Devon County Council withdrew its minerals objection to EXMO20 in January 2026 after the policy wording was changed. The council says decisions on the plan were made in public after considering all the evidence, and that objectors will be heard at the examination.

Traffic pollution next to the site

Car and lorry exhaust adds nitrogen to the heathland, which harms it. The B3179, where EXMO20's main road access would join, runs between the site and Withycombe Raleigh Common and Bystock, part of the protected Pebblebed Heaths.

The same paragraph says the version that takes account of Natural England's concerns shows "corridors of land, typically stretching around 20 to 40 metres in from the road edges across the heaths where potential for adverse effects cannot be screened out". It says these corridors are "substantially narrower" than in the original modelling, and add up to "about 1% of the total area of the habitat". The same report adds (para 3.15): "whilst potential for adverse effects cannot be screened out it does not mean that they will actually happen." The updated report had not been published as of 10 November 2026.

Inside a Strategic Nature Area

Strategic Nature Areas were mapped for Devon to show where wildlife habitats most need to be protected, restored and joined up. The council's own Sustainability Appraisal records that EXMO20 lies in one:

Devon Wildlife Trust says "the entirety of the proposed Exmo_20 allocation lies within a Strategic Nature Area" (above). The lowland heath Strategic Nature Area here is SNA 368, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. Devon Biodiversity Records Centre's profile describes it as a large area, about 3,350 hectares, stretching from the Heaths to the coast. It records that it contains "the largest block of lowland heath in Devon", and lists breeding nightjar and Dartford warbler, over 20 priority moth and butterfly species, 21 breeding dragonfly species, otters, dormice and bats. (SNA 368 profile, Devon Biodiversity Records Centre, PDF)

Water and sewage

The Local Plan's evidence on water supply and sewage, the Water Cycle Study, is being redone. In September 2026 officers told the committee:

The report says the work is being re-modelled using the Environment Agency's preferred method, with "final outputs in October 2026" (para 2.4), and that "of higher importance in terms of local plan work is that we reach agreed outputs and conclusions with the Environment Agency as this is the key body with statutory responsibilities". As of 10 November 2026 the updated study had not been published.

For balance: South West Water told the MP that "There is currently measured headroom available at Maer Lane for all developments that will be constructed ahead of investment which is planned to be completed by late 2028" (statement). The council says its policies stop new homes being occupied until wastewater capacity is in place. The Environment Agency has not objected to the site itself.

Health services

In May 2026 an officer told the committee that the NHS had helped prepare the plan's Infrastructure Delivery Plan, and that a consultee's concern does not by itself make the plan unsound (their argument and our answer).

Archaeology: prehistoric finds on the higher ground

Devon County Council, which advises on archaeology, asked in January 2026 for a full heritage and archaeological assessment of the site. It pointed to:

The access road from the B3179 would come into the site from the north. Historic England has separately said the site is "Unsound" because of harm to the setting of the grade II* listed Church of St John in the Wilderness (above).

Budleigh Salterton Town Council objects

Budleigh Salterton is the nearest town to the proposed main access on the B3179. In its formal response to the first Regulation 19 consultation (2025), the town council said the plan was unsound because of EXMO20:

What the council's own evidence says

These come from documents written for the council, or by it, as part of the Local Plan.

The council's own documents

How EXMO20 was assessed, set side by side:

The council's environmental decision (July 2026)

Before applying for planning permission, the developer, 3West, asked the council for a "screening opinion": a decision on whether the scheme needs a full Environmental Impact Assessment. Devon Wildlife Trust records that the developer's request said the scheme was not EIA development. The council disagreed.

What the developer's own plans show

3West published a framework plan and a constraints plan for the site after its July 2026 webinar (developer's website). The framework plan marks the 400 m buffer around the Pebblebed Heaths with a dashed line. Inside that line it shows:

• the main vehicle access road from the B3179;
• sports pitches, with "Social and Community facilities, Sports pitches with changing rooms and associated parking";
• an area of about 2 hectares labelled "Care, health, community, retail and employment";
• public open space or SANG (green space for recreation, intended to draw visitors away from the Heaths).

The housing areas are drawn just outside the line. The plan's key says "Circa 750 homes @33 dph", where the draft Local Plan says "around 700".

Set that beside what the council's own documents say about the same 400 m zone:

The developer's documents describe early proposals. No planning application has been submitted yet. Its July 2026 slides say it intends to "submit an outline planning application later this year".

Then and now: the 2021 vision

Before EXMO20 was in the Local Plan, the site's promoters published a vision document, "St John's Woodland Village – A place to belong" (2021). The council publishes it as the Exmo_20 vision statement. Here is what it said, set beside what has been said since.

Objections in numbers

Both of the council's feedback reports call the policy containing EXMO20 "the most commented-on policy by a considerable margin". The second report's AI declaration (p.12) says responses were summarised using Microsoft Copilot. (second feedback report)

Timeline