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.
Chair accepts SAC/SPA was not mentioned in the committee papers
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Morning 00:42:44 ▶
Said in the meeting“Yeah, no, and I will take that point, and perhaps it should have been mentioned in those papers, But again, members of this committee sit on this committee because we're expected to know…”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The Chair answered the point that the papers used to allocate EXMO20 left out the SAC/SPA. At 00:42:11 he also said 'perhaps there was no mention in papers'. The minutes give the public point but not this answer.
Housing supply: allocations 3 homes short of requirement plus 10% buffer
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer, Assistant Director) · Morning 01:34:31 ▶
Said in the meeting“So, effectively, our target plus 10% buffer for the plan 2024 to 2042 was 22,539 homes. With the emission of Budl_01 and Otto 02, we would have allocations amounting to, in addition to the windfall projections and commitments on the table, we'd have a total amounted to 22,536 leaving us three homes shy of the plan requirement plus 10%”
The minutesThe Committee’s attention was drawn to the housing numbers and trajectory graph which helped Members to understand how the Council would get to a five-year housing land supply at the point of the adoption of the Plan.
The minutes give no figures. The plan's total sits at the requirement plus a buffer of about 2,000 homes. At 03:19:19 the officer said housing numbers could be met 'including the 10% buffer' without Budl_01.
Councillor compares Budl_01 removal with keeping EXMO20
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Brian Bailey · Morning 03:27:04 ▶
Said in the meeting“When you compare this to Exxonf 20, Exxonf 20 hasn't got as snowballs compared to this with the access and the level ground and not destroying any particular areas of woodland and things like that. So I can't see how you can be against this but for Exxonf 20. I know it shouldn't be compared but I feel obliged to.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A member questioned whether sites were treated consistently: Budl_01 was removed because of its landscape impact, while EXMO20 was kept. This goes to site selection and alternatives. ('Exxonf 20' is a transcription of 'Exmo 20'.)
EXMO20 allocated by committee, not on officers' recommendation; question on additional work
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Dan Ledger · Morning 03:31:38 ▶
Said in the meeting“can I get assurances the the additional work has been done to all other allocated sites namely EXMO20 because that was previously wasn't proposed as being allocated by officers and we the committee have made that decision”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A committee member said on the record that officers had not proposed EXMO20 for allocation, and asked whether the evidence work done for officer-recommended sites had been done for it.
Officer answer on flood-risk (SFRA) work for EXMO20
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer, Assistant Director) · Morning 03:32:03 ▶
Said in the meeting“yes so through you chair this is the only one I'm bringing back because of this issue I don't think there were flooding issues specifically with EXMO20 off the top of my head um but if there were that's already been covered in in the sfra work that we've done”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The answer was given 'off the top of my head'. At 03:39:19 he added that other sites members allocated were done, or are 'now been going through', the SFRA. The minutes do not record either answer.
Vice-Chair on the Pebblebed Heaths 400 m zone and the north of EXMO20
Important Minutes much briefer · Cllr Mike Howe (Vice-Chair) · Morning 03:44:46 ▶
Said in the meeting“…we don't anywhere in this raise the issue of the purple beddies triple si and the 400 meters mitigation zone that we should not ideally be building in I know it's in other policies but surely we should just be highlighting it to any further developer the northern part of this site has its issues to overcome”
The minutesExmo_20 Land at St Johns does not mention the Pebblebed Heaths or the 400m exclusion zone which needs to be included. Officers agreed that a sentence would be added so that any allocation would need to comply.
The minutes record the missing wording, but not the Vice-Chair's view that the 400 m zone should not ideally be built in, or his point that the northern part of the site has issues to overcome.
Councillor's concerns about EXMO20 access routes
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Brian Bailey · Morning 03:46:35 ▶
Said in the meeting“…The other one is through Southern Wood which is a very quiet well designed cul-de-SAC and at the back of there there's an ancient woodlander track which it's been suggested will be demolished for an entrance there which is highly unsuitable because it will come out of the cul-de-SAC onto a bend which is the Dinan Way.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
He also said the access by the Archery Club was 'way too far to town' and 'not sustainable' (03:46:17). He was unsure what Highways had said. Access and transport are tests of whether a site can be delivered.
Officer answer: EXMO20 primary access out of town by the Archery Club
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer, Assistant Director) · Morning 03:48:04 ▶
Said in the meeting“So I think we did highlight when members were considering this site that the primary access would need to be out by the Archery Club and that that was out of the town. So that was made clear when members made that allocation.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The officer said the main access would be outside the town and that access at the southern (Dinan Way) point would be 'limited' (03:47:45). This bears on transport and sustainability evidence for EXMO20.
Advice that allocations could be revisited at Full Council before submission
Important Not in the minutes · unidentified (probably an officer) · Afternoon 00:00:14 ▶
Said in the meeting“…That won't happen until after the second round of Reg 19 consultation has been completed, which will be beyond six months. so so that might be if the members are minded to revisit this that might be a better time and place to do it”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
Members were told the plan goes to Full Council before submission, the point to revisit decisions outside the six-month rule. A member repeated this at 00:03:22. It is the route by which allocations such as EXMO20 could be reconsidered.
Final vote on the Regulation 19 plan and how many members voted
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Afternoon 01:30:45 ▶
Said in the meeting“All those in favor, please. That's five. Those against, that's one, and there will be no abstentions then because that's everyone. So that is carried. Recommendation two, all those in favour, please. That's five. Those against, that's one, and no abstentions then. And recommendation three, all those in favour, please. That's unanimously carried.”
The minutesRESOLVED: 1. That the publication draft of the Local Plan as appended to this report ... be approved
The minutes give no vote numbers. Six members voted on approving the Reg 19 plan. Earlier, at 01:23:11, a member said 'there's hardly any committee members left i know we're still core it'.
Chair rules that site allocation decisions will not be revisited
Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Morning 03:16:52 ▶
Said in the meeting“Just to remind members, the allocation decisions have been taken. We're not going to be revisiting those other than the two that officers have flagged legal concerns regarding.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
This set the scope of the debate: the EXMO20 allocation was not reopened after the public points on it (SAC/SPA papers, redrawn boundary). At 01:54:14 the Chair said he did not think the committee could constitutionally revisit allocations.
Planning Solicitor's advice on suspending the constitution
Minutes much briefer · Damian Hunter (officer, Planning Solicitor) · Afternoon 00:22:20 ▶
Said in the meeting“so it is possible for you to do that but again democratic services manager agrees with me that it's quite dubious behavior to do so uh in relation to a decision that you've taken less than one month ago”
The minutesthe Planning Solicitor advised that it would be possible to suspend the Constitution but questioned whether such a suspension would be proportionate taking account of the purposes of the Constitution set out in Article 1.
Legal advice given in public. The minutes record it as questioning proportionality, without the words 'quite dubious behavior' or the point about a decision taken less than a month before. Vote 2–6–1 (00:27:26); the minutes give no count.