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.
Housing need figure fell by 563 homes
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:33:52 ▶
Said in the meeting“the last year that's actually come down which has actually reduced our housing requirement figure so if we apply that it equates to a fall of just over 25 dwellings per year which when multiplied out over 22 years of the potential plan period equates to a fall of 563 homes so that's the good news”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The minutes record the 80% figure and the 5,000-home risk, but not that updated affordability data cut the housing requirement by about 563 homes. That bears on whether the plan has room to replace a site.
Removing EXMO20 described as advice on consequences, not a bar
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:46:50 ▶
Said in the meeting“…so that's the kind of scale I think in terms of changes where I think we really have a problem I'm not saying you can't do it I'm just advising you of the consequences”
The minutesMembers were advised that some changes could be made but to be mindful of making significant changes as these would change the transitional arrangements. For example, Exmo_20 would equate to 48% of the total number of homes allocated in Exmouth and this would constitute a fundamental change as this percentage of houses could not be made up elsewhere in Exmouth.
The minutes record that some changes could be made and that losing EXMO20 would be a fundamental change. They do not record his words that he was not saying members could not remove it, only advising on consequences. His replacement search covered Exmouth only.
B3179 access was an original main concern and a significant cost
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:54:14 ▶
Said in the meeting“the only alternative and this was one of members main officers main concerns with this site originally was the need to create an access off the B3179 to the northeastern corner of the site and for traffic to then potentially have to drive quite a securitous route into the town from there”
The minutesCreate a vehicular access off the B3179 to the north eastern corner of the site to run through the 400m exclusion zone.
The minutes list the B3179 access under 'Main issues addressed'. The officer described it as one of officers' original main concerns, with a road through the 400m heaths zone that is 'quite a significant cost' (00:54:39).
Only about 150 homes can use the southern (St John's Road) access
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 01:29:29 ▶
Said in the meeting“…and given that I think we're only talking about 150 homes accessing at that southern part of the site the remainder would have to to be accessed to to the north onto the B3179”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The minutes record that vehicle access via parcel 12 to St John's Road was not feasible, but not this answer: only about 150 homes would use the southern access, and most of the 700 would depend on the new B3179 access.
Site boundary not redrawn because the access route is unknown
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 01:46:35 ▶
Said in the meeting“…we did think about redrawing the boundary to to reflect that I think the difficulty is at this stage we don't know where the access road would come in from from the B3179 um and obviously the access road is part of the sites and needs to be within the site boundary”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes. (The minutes record the reply only as: 'by taking into account the 400m buffer zone and the mineral extraction zone means that development on this site would only be on the south side.')
The minutes record the reply about the south side only. They leave out the officer's statement that the B3179 access road's position was not yet known, which is why the boundary was left unchanged.
Chair's account of why EXMO20 was added to the plan
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Morning 01:57:32 ▶
Said in the meeting“as we're in September, the reason that this site was brought into the plan, because as others have rightly highlighted it was originally not recommended by officers to go in is because by building at a greater scale than we achieve on all of those individual smaller sites you achieve the quantum of development necessary to put the infrastructure”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
This is a stated reason for the site's selection: it was not originally recommended by officers, and scale was expected to fund infrastructure such as a school. The minutes record Cllr Bailey's objection but not this reply.
Exmouth vote: proposer, seconder and numbers
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · Morning 02:04:08 ▶
Said in the meeting“so for the record that's nine in favor those against please that's one against and those abstaining please that's two abstentions I think”
The minutesTo retain site allocations Exmo_47, Exmo_20, Exmo_17 Exmo_08, Exmo_16 and Exmo_18 in the Local Plan.
The minutes give the resolution but not the proposer (Cllr Davey), the seconder (Cllr Levine) or the 9–1–2 vote. The Honiton minute does record its proposer, seconder and amendments.
Environment Agency's concern about missing water quality evidence
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:30:40 ▶
Said in the meeting“so you'll know the environment agency raised some concerns about lack of evidence in regard to water quality issues in response to regulation 19 plan and a desire to see a water cycle study”
The minutesWater quality – Additional work is still needed to be completed to align with the current site allocations in the Local Plan and to understand the impacts on transmission infrastructure.
The minutes record that more work is needed but not that the Environment Agency's Regulation 19 response raised a lack of water quality evidence. The officer also linked the work to Maer Lane treatment works (00:31:19).
Only support for EXMO20 came from the site's promoters
Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:52:45 ▶
Said in the meeting“the only support I think came from the planning consultant and developer of the site”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
This summarises the balance of the Regulation 19 responses: over 1,100 objections (00:51:50) and support only from the site's promoters. The minutes list the issues raised but not this balance.
Housing number for Exmo_08 and Exmo_16
Minutes differ · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 01:04:44 ▶
Said in the meeting“so our overall recommendation here is to retain Exmo_08 and Exmo_16 as allocations in the plan totalling 45 dwellings”
The minutesRetain Exmo_08 & 16 as an allocation for 410 dwellings.
The minutes give 410 dwellings (Exmo_17's figure) as the recommendation for Exmo_08 and 16. Elsewhere they give 45, which is what the officer said. This affects the Exmouth totals used in the 48% argument.
HRA flagged nitrogen from traffic on Pebblebed Heaths roads
Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:30:08 ▶
Said in the meeting“earlier in terms of the Habitat Regulations assessment work um which flagged up this concern about the impact of petrol and diesel vehicle exhaust leading to increased levels of nitrogen being deposited along the roads which can lead to um what refers to the wrong types of vegetation growing alongside the roadside”
The minutesImplications of additional traffic for the Pebblebed Heaths – work is ongoing working towards a Mitigation Strategy and will be brought to Committee in due course.
The minutes do not say the concern came from the Habitat Regulations Assessment, or what it is (nitrogen deposition harming heath vegetation). This is relevant to traffic from EXMO20's B3179 access.