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.
Officer view that removing EXMO20 would certainly be a significant change
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:49:48 ▶
Said in the meeting“…The removal of any allocation is likely to be a significant change at this point in plan preparation but to remove a site of 700 homes would in officers opinion certainly constitute a significant change and could not be undertaken at this point without a further Reg 19 consultation which cannot be completed in the time available.”
The minutesThe retention of the Exmo_20 allocation had previously been considered by Members, who had decided not to reduce housing numbers due to the risks of delaying the Local Plan and falling outside transitional arrangements.
This is the officer's stated reason why EXMO20 cannot be removed now. The minutes refer only to members' earlier decision, not to the officer's opinion about a 700-home site or the need for a further Reg 19 consultation.
HRA timing: legally required at adoption, recommended at submission
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:54:11 ▶
Said in the meeting“…compliant HRA is required at the point of plan adoption. It is not a legal requirement before then albeit it is clearly good practice and recommended in planning inspectorate guidance to have this at the point of submission.”
The minutesA compliant Habitat Regulations Assessment would be required before plan adoption, and work was continuing to address outstanding issues before submission.
The minutes do not record the officer's statement that Planning Inspectorate guidance recommends having a compliant HRA at submission.
Plan could be submitted before the HRA issues are resolved
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:41:35 ▶
Said in the meeting“…the legal requirement is to have a sound HRA at the point of plan adoption it's very much best practice and in the guidance to have it at the point you submit the plan but it's not an absolute requirement so we could submit the plan in advance of resolving those issues”
The minutesthe key issue related to the Pebblebed Heaths, as a legally compliant Habitat Regulations Assessment would be required before the Local Plan could be adopted.
The officer said that submitting the plan before the Pebblebed Heaths HRA issues were resolved was an option. The minutes do not record this.
Whether to submit without an acceptable HRA is for members to decide
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:43:39 ▶
Said in the meeting“…I say ultimately that's for for you as members to decide whether or not we submit the plan um based on wherever we get to by the deadline um so there will be a choice to be made but I hope it's a choice you won't have to make”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The officer said members may have to choose whether to submit the plan without an acceptable HRA by the deadline. The minutes do not record this.
Removing specific sites to cut air quality impacts would be a substantial change
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 03:12:20 ▶
Said in the meeting“…if they were removed the impacts would come below the thresholds that Natural England guidance suggests is acceptable such that there isn't a significant effect um so that is something that we could look at but to do so would probably involve uh well would involve a substantial change to the plan that we can't do at this point”
The minutesWhile the impact of removing sites or reducing housing numbers could theoretically be assessed, the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services advised that the current focus was on understanding impacts as a whole and identifying appropriate mitigation measures.
The question named EXMO20 as one of the sites closest to the heaths. The minutes do not name EXMO20, and they do not record the officer's statements that 'some do impact more than others' and that removing sites would be a substantial change.
Southern Wood access to EXMO20
Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:52:33 ▶
Said in the meeting“…I'm not clear why you are saying that access through southern wood is not now proposed however the draft Local Plan continues to allow for modest levels of development to be accessed this way”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
Access to EXMO20 decides how much of the site's traffic crosses the Pebblebed Heaths. The minutes summarise the answers without this point.
Limits on traffic measures to protect the heaths
Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:13:00 ▶
Said in the meeting“…the acts that they work to mean you have to do them for highway safety purposes uh not to mitigate impacts on a protected habitat so there's not a great deal we can do in terms of those sorts of things”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The officer said traffic restrictions cannot legally be used to protect the heaths, which limits one route to air quality mitigation. Neither Cllr Davey's question nor this answer is recorded.
Whether Marlcombe is in the baseline or the future-growth modelling
Minutes differ · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:15:55 ▶
Said in the meeting“well Cranbrook expansion areas in terms of existing planned growth and then malcombe's part of the modeling of the future growth that is what's in the assessment now yeah”
The minutesHe confirmed that both the Cranbrook expansion areas and the Marlcombe development had been included within the baseline assessment and had therefore been taken into account within the modelling.
The officer put Marlcombe in the modelled future (Local Plan) growth, not in the baseline. The minutes say both Marlcombe and Cranbrook are in the baseline.
Request to publish the evidence early for members and the public
Not in the minutes · Cllr Dan Ledger (request); Cllr Todd Olive, Chair (reply) · 02:29:15 ▶
Said in the meeting“…can we just have a commitment to that can it also be put on our website as well early enough so that members of the public can accurately scrutinize it as well mr Freeman says yes”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A commitment was given to send the new air quality, HRA and water evidence to members early and to publish it for the public before the plan comes back. The minutes do not record it.
Electric-vehicle uptake as mitigation 'easier said than done'
Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:38:59 ▶
Said in the meeting“…we thought initially the mitigation would simply be you know increasing uptake of electric vehicles knowing that it's the pollutants that are rising from that but as as the report shows and and as members are picked up on that's that's very much easier said than done”
The minutesThe findings would then be used to inform the development of appropriate mitigation measures, which could include habitat management and additional planting, before a final mitigation strategy is agreed.
The officer said the original approach to air quality mitigation, relying on electric-vehicle uptake, was harder than expected. The minutes record only the new options.
Air quality modelling did not include unallocated sites
Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 03:14:04 ▶
Said in the meeting“…no because the modeling was the sites that we're allocating in the plan not the sites that we chose not to allocate um so we'd have to do further modeling specifically in terms of that site to understand its impacts but ultimately the onus as things stand is on the applicant to to address that issue”
The minutes…whether a significant planning application on an unallocated site within the area had been taken into account in the modelling assumptions.
The minutes record the question but not the answer: the plan's air quality modelling does not cover large unallocated applications such as the Clyst village scheme. Cumulative impacts on the heaths depend on this.
Vote on the Local Plan progress update
Minutes much briefer · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · 03:19:12 ▶
Said in the meeting“…all those in favor please those against and those abstaining one okay thank you members that is carried”
The minutesRESOLVED: That the ongoing work be noted and officers continue to progress further to provide a sound evidence base for submission of the Plan.
The minutes give no vote figures. The recording shows one abstention, but the numbers for and against were not read out.