Minutes are a summary, not a word-for-word record. Below are points from the recording that matter for EXMO20 or the Local Plan, set against what the official minutes say about them. Judge for yourself: each clip opens at the moment it was said.
10% headroom described as up to members
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:19:27 ▶
Said in the meeting“which um I'm recommending is something we should try and achieve through the plan whether it's noted in the recommendation or not that issue will still remain it's whether or not members want to formally note that as part of the recommendations that's that's that's up to members really”
The minutesIn response, the figure was indeed good practice, and the reasons for a headroom element were explained including to provide resilience to maintaining a five year land supply.
With officer-recommended sites the requirement was met with 253 homes (1.2%) headroom. The 10% headroom is an officer recommendation. In the afternoon EXMO20 was supported partly as helping towards that headroom.
No officer introduction of Exmo_20a before the debate
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Afternoon 00:07:23 ▶
Said in the meeting“um uh so I I have no other speakers um registered uh on Exmouth 20a then so we come into committee unless there's anything officers want to add by way of an update on nope okay in which case”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The site-selection presentation could not be shown, and no officer set out the assessment, recommendation or reasons for Exmo_20a before members debated and voted. Most other sites that day had an officer introduction.
Proposer's stated reason for allocating Exmo_20a
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Ben Ingham · Afternoon 00:08:58 ▶
Said in the meeting“…it's so important if you can to have a sizable site allocated where you can provide coherent infrastructure over a period of time as you develop the site so I'm quite happy to propose that we recognise this site for consideration as for development.”
The minutesInclusion for allocation, against officer recommendation, was proposed by Cllr Ingham and seconded by Cllr Jung.
The proposer said he first heard of the site at the workshop as a coherent alternative to the sites around Courtlands Lane, Summer Lane and Hulham Road. The Chair later said (00:22:23) that those sites plus Goodmores would give a similar scale of development and infrastructure.
Seconder's reasons: numbers after the morning's rejections
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Geoff Jung · Afternoon 00:10:06 ▶
Said in the meeting“…which might reduce the number of houses but seeing that the recommendation for allocation is not and we can possibly get 550 out of that does that bring the figures back to a realistic point of speech.”
The minutesCommittee debated the need to carefully consider access and by mindful of St Johns In the Wilderness in that area.
The seconder noted that officers had not recommended the site and asked whether it would restore the numbers. The Chair replied that the committee was 'substantially below that 10% headroom' and 'This helps in that direction' (00:10:37).
Officer: EXMO20 was member-led and its landowners were not yet confirmed
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:12:02 ▶
Said in the meeting“…this is something that came out of the working group meetings as something that was perhaps favoured more by members than it had been by officers up to that point. So there's just a slight caveat that there's further work needed in terms of understanding which landowners are still promoting land in this area.”
The minutesThe committee were reminded that more analysis of the site was required, particularly on reservations about the access to the site, although if taken into account along with Exmo_20b this may offer an improved means of access.
The minutes do not record that officers said the site came from member working groups and was favoured more by members than by officers, or that it was unclear which landowners were still promoting the land.
Officer: further work needed before EXMO20 could be a 'concrete fixed allocation'
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:13:04 ▶
Said in the meeting“…it needs some further work to be done so just to highlight that caveat but happy for members to consider it in the context of the information before you at the moment with the understanding that some further work would need to be done before we could put it in as a concrete fixed allocations”
The minutesThe committee were reminded that more analysis of the site was required, particularly on reservations about the access to the site
The officer said that of all the sites, this was the one needing further work, and that the work was needed before it could be a fixed allocation. He also said main vehicle access would be to the north, encouraging longer journeys. The minutes give a shorter general summary.
How the Exmo_20a vote was taken and recorded
Important Minutes differ · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Afternoon 00:17:23 ▶
Said in the meeting“then we have a proposal to take site 20a forward from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Jung okay those in favour those against and those abstaining okay 20a goes forward”
The minutesCommittee endorsed the recommendation to include Exmo_20 in the site allocation.
No numbers for, against or abstaining were announced. Counts were announced for many other contested votes that day. The minutes call the result endorsing 'the recommendation', though the officer recommendation was not to allocate, and name 'Exmo_20' rather than 20a.
Officer warning on examination risk when allocating in the National Landscape
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:56:56 ▶
Said in the meeting“but I think we will run into problems I suspect through the examination process if you are allocating this site ahead of sites within the green wedge and within coastal preservation areas and seeking to protect those and give those greater weight in terms of their importance than the national landscape”
The minutesThe Committee were reminded that classification of being a National Landscape was the highest designation for a site, and the site was only recommended with the greatest reluctance.
This was said on Exmo_17 but concerns the overall pattern of the day's choices, after green wedge and coastal preservation area sites had been rejected in the morning. It is advice about the plan's soundness at examination, and the minutes do not record it.
Wastewater infrastructure and where sites are allocated
Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:16:26 ▶
Said in the meeting“um these are issues that should not however impact on where sites are to be allocated in districts we have relatively few options in this regard as members will be aware and in any event planning does not have control over wastewater infrastructure”
The minutesOfficers advised the committee that there was continued engagement with South West Water, and they were very aware of the issues.
The officer also said the water cycle study and the infrastructure delivery plan (dating from 2017) were still being prepared. Sites were allocated before that evidence was complete. The minutes for item 133 do not mention this.
Access to EXMO20 based on what the developers advised
Minutes much briefer · Matt Dickins (officer) · Afternoon 00:16:45 ▶
Said in the meeting“the prospective developers have advised of road access coming through site 20B from the south so there would be a link through a housing estate and onto Deanham Way and also highway access to the north to Ting Tong”
The minutesalthough if taken into account along with Exmo_20b this may offer an improved means of access.
This answered Cllr Brian Bailey's question on how the site would be accessed. The answer came from what the prospective developers had advised, not an officer or highway authority assessment. The minutes do not record the source.
Ward member's clarification after the vote that he did not support 20a
Not in the minutes · Cllr Matt Hall · Afternoon 00:19:27 ▶
Said in the meeting“If I could just be clear about one previous point, at no point was I suggesting that I supported 20A. It's just a question that if Exmouth is forced to expand, that this is the area that it should look to.”
The minutesWard Member Councillor Matt Hall stated that there were a number of issues with the site, including the ecology, and the poor access, making the site unsustainable.
The proposer had referred to the ward member's 'golden triangle' remarks when proposing 20a. The ward member's statement after the vote that he had not supported 20a is not in the minutes. He had also said the site proposed approximately 1,000 homes.
Officer commitment to a whole-site masterplan and phasing plan
Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:24:58 ▶
Said in the meeting“if we're allocating the site as a whole we would want a master plan of the site as a whole produced and a phasing plan as part of that so we can try and coordinate the delivery of the housing with the infrastructure coordinate the access arrangements and how this all comes forward”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
Members raised concerns that 20a and 20b could come forward separately without infrastructure. The officer's statement that a whole-site masterplan and phasing plan would be sought is a commitment that can be checked against the later policy wording.