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.
Commitment that the Regulation 19 plan will have its evidence base and will flag problems
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:46:16 ▶
Said in the meeting“we will have to have the evidence base in in place so if there are any currently unforeseen issues in terms of the designation of those sites and obviously we would draw members attention to that when the regulation 19 plan comes through so that members can we consider”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The officer committed that the evidence would be in place at Regulation 19 and that problems would be flagged so members could reconsider. This bears on how later evidence on any site, including EXMO20, was reported.
Councillor refers to Exmouth building 'right up to the Pebble Bed Heaths'
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Brian Bailey · Morning 02:15:47 ▶
Said in the meeting“so I think there's less harm in building there than other places which I know very well, I'll mention Exmouth again which is the prospect of being built right up to the Pebblebed Heaths which is normally wouldn't even be considered but we have to consider these sites and we have to bite the bullet…”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A committee member described Exmouth development next to the Pebble Bed Heaths as something that 'normally wouldn't even be considered'. This is the most direct reference at this meeting to the area containing EXMO20.
Habitats (River Axe phosphates): solutions assumed; HRA still needed
Important Minutes differ · Ed Freeman (officer) · Afternoon 00:20:10 ▶
Said in the meeting“…because I think we have to assume that we will be able to deliver the mitigation that's needed and obviously in terms of the acceptability of the Local Plan we will need to be able to do a Habitat Regulations assessment that demonstrates that we can make that acceptable”
The minutesAs the Local Plan would run from 2020 to 2042 it was to be assumed that solutions would be found to mitigate these issues during the early years of the plan.
The minutes do not record several points. The officer said a habitat regulations assessment was still needed for the plan, and that the issue did not 'inform' sites or quantum. The words 'early years' are not in what he 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.
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.
Chair: earlier allocation decisions could not be reversed at this meeting
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Todd Olive (Chair) · 00:55:16 ▶
Said in the meeting“where I will take the opportunity before Mr Freeman speaks to remind members that we are looking at what has changed since the December version that we saw, because we have, of course, already approved the December version, which means unless members would like to suspend the Constitution, we can't go back and reverse those decisions at this time.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
This limited the scope of the debate. Members were told that site allocations, including EXMO20, could not be revisited at the meeting that approved the Regulation 19 plan. The officer repeated this at 01:05:01.
HRA: air pollution on the Pebblebed Heaths still needs a full mitigation strategy
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:02:25 ▶
Said in the meeting“Habitat Regulations work and further specialists on this air pollution issue so we are satisfied that it can be mitigated but we obviously need to develop a full mitigation strategy as part of further work to inform the plan for that to be submitted for examination…”
The minutesMembers noted that work was still ongoing in relation to air pollution and the Pebblebed Heaths.
The officer also said this air-pollution issue 'wasn't previously identified' (01:01:45). He confirmed that no mitigation strategy existed yet and that one was needed before submission. The minutes record only that work was ongoing.
Natural England to be consulted on heaths issues through Regulation 19
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:03:03 ▶
Said in the meeting“…we will be consulting with Natural England on those issues and obviously working with them as the plan progresses through the examination process as well so as I say that's all an iterative process that works forward so we don't have the final answers we don't need to on some of those issues at this point…”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A public speaker said Natural England had not been properly consulted. The minutes record that claim but not the officer's answer: consultation would happen through Regulation 19, after the plan was approved, and final answers were not needed yet.
Updated HRA is not final; work to continue beyond Regulation 19
Important Minutes much briefer · officer (probably Ed Freeman) · 01:24:01 ▶
Said in the meeting“…so we have an updated HRA again as I say it won't be a final one because as I say there's further work ongoing and there will be even beyond the regulation 19 consultation…”
The minutesThe Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged that not all the final versions of the evidence documents had been seen and reassured Members that these documents did not contain any surprises
The plan, including EXMO20 next to the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA, went to Regulation 19 with an HRA that the officer said was not final. The minutes record only that members had not seen all final versions.
Cllr Davey: why members chose EXMO20
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Olly Davey · 01:40:56 ▶
Said in the meeting“…just like to say about EXMO20 I think one of the reasons we asked officers to look at it again was because we considered it was a better location than some of the developments along hullam road that we really did not like and I think it was actually chosen as an alternative…”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A committee member's stated reason for the EXMO20 allocation: it was chosen as an alternative to Hulham Road sites. This is relevant to site selection and alternatives. He added that he was not at the meeting where it was approved.
Cllr Brian Bailey: opposed to EXMO20
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Brian Bailey · 01:46:43 ▶
Said in the meeting“I'm totally against Exxon 20. When it did come up, it was seen as a least worst option, I think, was the quote from Councillor Howe when it came up. And the more we look into it, the worst choice. sometimes, personally, I think most of the committee that voted for it would probably wish that they hadn't.…”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A committee member said he opposed EXMO20 and described it as having been seen as the 'least worst option'. The minutes do not record any member's comments on EXMO20.
Environment Agency concern: late-added sites had no Level 2 flood risk assessment
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:15:49 ▶
Said in the meeting“they've also raised some concerns about the strategic flood risk assessment level two as some of the late addition sites hadn't been through the stage two process”
The minutesreceiving a number of concerns raised by statutory bodies in relation to missing evidence.
The officer said late-added sites had not been through the Level 2 SFRA when the Reg 19 plan was consulted on. EXMO20 was added late by members; the minutes give only 'missing evidence'.
Statutory consultees saw the evidence gaps as more significant than officers did
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:16:12 ▶
Said in the meeting“there were some some what we considered minor gaps in the evidence but some of the consultees have considered those to be more significant than perhaps we felt they were um and so um and and that was reflected in say the comments from the environment agency but also Natural England in terms of habitat mitigations issues”
The minutesreceiving a number of concerns raised by statutory bodies in relation to missing evidence.
Records that officers had judged the evidence gaps at Reg 19 to be minor, while the Environment Agency and Natural England considered them more significant. The minutes do not record this difference of view.
Air-quality mitigation strategy for the Pebblebed Heaths commissioned but not yet available
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 02:16:36 ▶
Said in the meeting“it was flagged up in the um the habitat uh assessments about the air quality impacts on the Pebblebed Heaths and the needs for mitigation strategy for that that work has been commissioned but we obviously don't have that yet um and that's obviously raising concerns from Natural England's perspective as well”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The habitats assessment had flagged air-quality impacts on the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA, next to EXMO20; the mitigation strategy was not yet available and Natural England had concerns. The minutes do not mention air quality or the heaths here.
Officer explains EXMO20 was a rejected site at Regulation 18 and was allocated by the committee
Important Not in the minutes · officer (probably Ed Freeman) · 02:33:58 ▶
Said in the meeting“while we did consult on that site at regulation 18 stage it was at that time a rejected site based on officers' assessments and you recall that it was the committee that determined that you wanted to include it as an allocation in the plan”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
Confirms in public that EXMO20 was rejected on officers' assessment at Regulation 18 and was made an allocation by the committee. He added that many people did not treat it as an allocation at Reg 18.
Councillor cites Woodland Trust letter on old woodland and 400-year-old trees on the site
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Brian Bailey · 02:34:41 ▶
Said in the meeting“I have a copy of a letter here from the Woodland Trust and they've done some research into this and they are suggesting that that area we're talking about is 200 years old it's been um a woodland area and there are also several trees on that site that are over 400 years old”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A committee member raised a specific environmental concern about the EXMO20 area (long-established woodland and veteran trees) citing the Woodland Trust. The minutes do not mention it.
Pebblebed Heaths air quality assessment and mitigation still in progress
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:35:06 ▶
Said in the meeting“…other things to mention in terms of pebble bed he says the air quality assessment and mitigation strategy that works progressing well with the consultants and again confident that we will have an approach to that that addresses the concerns that have been raised in time for the consultation the second regulation 19 consultation”
The minutesThe Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager advised that he was confident that the outstanding evidence documents would be completed in time to support the Local Plan consultation
The minutes do not name the Pebblebed Heaths air quality assessment and mitigation strategy as outstanding. This evidence is directly relevant to a site next to the heaths SAC/SPA.
Officer: gaps in evidence (SFRA, water cycle study, HRA) were known
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:47:06 ▶
Said in the meeting“…we knew that there was some work that still needed to be done in terms of Stage 2 SFRA, for example. we knew there were some sites that hadn't been through that process because they were added in quite late we knew we didn't have the water cycle study we knew that the HRA required some some further work”
The minutesIn response he advised that some comments were a surprise and gave an example that the Environment Agency had objected to the lack of a Water Cycle Study when it was not a requirement.
The minutes record the 'surprise' part of the answer but not the statement that the missing SFRA, water cycle study and further HRA work were known when the plan went to consultation.
Councillor's account of how Exmo_20 entered the plan
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Olly Davey · 02:38:05 ▶
Said in the meeting“My recollection is that EXMO20 wasn't put forward by officers and it was councillors who persuaded them to look at it again because we felt it was an alternative to the sites to the west of Hullam Road, the northwest of Hullam Road, which did seem to us incredibly unsustainable.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes. (The minutes record only: 'There was a need to consider the high level of objections received for Exmo_20 and a suggestion was made to review Exmo_20.')
Gives a member's account of the site's origin (not proposed by officers; chosen by councillors as an alternative to Hulham Road sites). Relevant to site selection and alternatives.
Proximity of Exmo_20 to the National Landscape and Pebblebed Heaths
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Olly Davey · 02:39:26 ▶
Said in the meeting“There's also, and I think very importantly, the proximity to the national landscape and particularly the Pebblebed Heaths. And I notice the very first point in the issues and actions is to review allocations within or adjacent to a national landscape.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes. (Only 'a suggestion was made to review Exmo_20' is recorded.)
The stated reason for review links Exmo_20 to the officers' own action to review allocations within or next to a National Landscape, and to the protected heaths.
Committee member says officers had advised against including Exmo_20
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Dan Ledger · 02:51:19 ▶
Said in the meeting“…yes this isn't an ideal site and it shouldn't have been included at the time. The officers themselves said it shouldn't be included. We as members have made that decision to push forward and we have to be accountable to the members of the public”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes. (The minutes record only his point that 'this was going to be East Devon District Council’s last Local Plan'. Under public speaking they record the officer's general remark that 'on occasions the Committee’s views had differed from officers recommendations'.)
A committee member states in public that officers advised against including Exmo_20 and that members chose to include it. This bears on how the allocation decision was reached.
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.
Developers can apply for EXMO20 before the plan is adopted
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:21:52 ▶
Said in the meeting“…what we think is acceptable for EXMO20 they can make an application for something else if they want to doesn't mean it's going to be acceptable to us um but they are entitled to um and that can be considered ahead of the Local Plan and could potentially be approved ahead of the Local Plan”
The minutesDevelopers were entitled to promote additional development, so there was no need for developers’ plans to align with the plans in relation to EXMO 20 before the draft Local Plan was adopted.
The minutes record the public speaker's question about approval before adoption, but not the officer's answer: an application differing from the plan could be considered and potentially approved before the plan is adopted.
Slide at the previous meeting showed a larger EXMO20 site; corrected plan promised
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:28:31 ▶
Said in the meeting“…yes so there was an error on the powerpoint slide at the last meeting which showed a slightly larger site than is actually proposed for allocation in the plan we will obviously be bringing a further version of the plan to you probably the next meeting in november”
The minutesIt was clarified that a further version of the EXMO 20 plan would be brought to a future meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee to be considered and agreed.
The minutes do not record the councillor's question, or that the officer confirmed the slide at the 2 September 2025 meeting showed a larger site than the one proposed for allocation.
Pebblebed Heaths air quality assessment and water cycle study still awaited
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:56:07 ▶
Said in the meeting“…rig 19 consultation I think the timeline I brought forward was um to launch that in october I think realistically it's probably more likely to be november now we're still waiting on a couple of key documents particularly the water cycle study and um the assessment of air quality issues on the pelvis…”
The minutesIt was noted that Regulation 19 consultation was likely to commence in November 2025 for a six-week period.
The minutes give the November date but not the reason: the water cycle study and the air quality assessment for the Pebblebed Heaths (probably 'pelvis' in the transcript) were not finished. Both matter for the HRA and for EXMO20.
Officer rejects moving numbers from other sites to Marlcombe
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:14:55 ▶
Said in the meeting“…in that plan period um so I don't think the solution that was suggested earlier of of you know deleting sites in the plan and just putting higher numbers that Marlcombe actually works in in reality um as much as that might be a convenient solution”
The minutesThere were a number of challenges with housing numbers. The build rates were set as they were, with conservative numbers as it was very hard to predict when delivery might start and the speed at which it would take place.
This is the officer's answer to the public suggestion to drop sites such as EXMO20 and use Marlcombe instead, a point about reasonable alternatives. The minutes record the build rates but not this conclusion.
Pebblebed Heaths air-quality HRA: mitigation not yet in place
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:17:37 ▶
Said in the meeting“In terms of the Habitat Regulations assessment I'll freely admit I had hoped that we would have that completely addressed by now and would be able to rule out significant effects on the Pebblebed Heaths in terms of air quality issues unfortunately that isn't the case there is further work needed in terms of developing a mitigation strategy”
The minutesthe further work needed for mitigation under the Habitat Regulations but that the impact on the Pebblebed Heaths had been identified at an early stage
The officer confirmed that significant effects on the heaths could not yet be ruled out. At 00:40:23 he added the strategy must exist 'to ensure that the legal requirements are met at plan submission'.
Water Cycle Study: Maer Lane among works needing upgrades or phasing
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:38:06 ▶
Said in the meeting“those relate to Colleton, Honiton, Fluxton, Feniton, Otterton, Maer Lane and Dunk as well so quite a number there that need to be addressed it also notes critical investment is needed at Exmouth Maer Lane”
The minuteslocal evidence of capacity levels being well below what was required – for example in Honiton
Exmouth's Maer Lane works would serve Exmouth growth including EXMO20. The minutes name Honiton but not the list of works the study says need upgrades or phasing, including Maer Lane.
EXMO20 access must cross the 400 m zone
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:56:56 ▶
Said in the meeting“the access road needs to come in in that direction so if you take that 400 meter zone out of the allocation then there's no access to that site um which then calls into question whether or not it's is viable and deliverable without an access that's adequate to to serve the needs of the development”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
This was the main reason given for keeping the heaths zone inside EXMO20. At 00:16:46 the officer also said 'we don't know precisely where that access will come in'.
Vote on recommendations 1 to 6 (second Regulation 19 consultation)
Important Minutes much briefer · Cllr Todd Olive (chair) · Morning 02:32:17 ▶
Said in the meeting“all those in favor of recommendations one to six that's 10 in favor those against please that's two against and those abstaining please that's one abstention”
The minutesApproved the revised local plan text and Policies Map for consultation
This vote approved the revised plan, including EXMO20, for the second Regulation 19 consultation. The minutes record the resolutions but no vote figures; the vote was split (10-2-1), and 1 to 6 and 7 were taken separately.
Officer's reply to the EXMO20 points made by two public speakers
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:31:21 ▶
Said in the meeting“…obviously they know to make those views through the consultation that's running at the moment so I won't respond or previously have obviously commented on many of those points through previous meetings.”
The minutesAll feedback on the Local Plan must be submitted through the ongoing consultation process.
The EXMO20 points (563-home headroom, the sustainability appraisal's 400 m wording, the change to the site selection method) were not answered at the meeting. The minutes record the general reply but not that the officer said he would not respond to them.
Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan and the North Exmouth area now in EXMO20
Important Not in the minutes · Cllr Brian Bailey · 01:13:48 ▶
Said in the meeting“However, going back to the Exmouth neighbourhood plan, we did put in the neighbourhood plan that we didn't want any development in North Exmouth, in Eyestock Village, which is one of the oldest walled villages in the country. And unfortunately, all the area of Northern Exmouth, which has now come under EXMO20.”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
A councillor involved in the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan said its aim for North Exmouth had 'not been adhered to by this authority' (01:14:17). The Chair then brought him back to the item ('I'm sorry to cut you off'). The minutes record his declared interest but not the point.
Mitigation depends on rerunning the modelling with higher electric vehicle uptake
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:44:44 ▶
Said in the meeting“So I'm hoping when they rerun the modelling, we'll get to a point where we will naturally see the impacts in terms of vehicle movements over the pebbleheads declining, such that the mitigation measures will not have to be as unachievable, shall we say, that we'll be able to achieve the outcomes that are needed.”
The minutesWhile no definitive mitigation strategy is in place at present, it was advised that the independent consultants Ricardo have identified potential measures, including encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles
The officer said the council thinks the current modelling takes 'quite a pessimistic view' of electric vehicle uptake, and that the measures might otherwise be 'unachievable'. The minutes do not record either point.
EXMO20 access road inside the 400 m Pebblebed Heaths buffer
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · Morning 00:55:10 ▶
Said in the meeting“…it's obviously not ideal to have the access there but it's not something that you can't have within the 400 meter buffer zone and I think as we've said in the plan and in the allocation there won't be any homes within the 400 meter buffer zone…”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
Cllr Brian Bailey asked (00:50:06) whether access through the heathland buffer fits the new NPPF. The officer confirmed the access would be opposite the archery club. The minutes record neither question nor answer.
Officer advice not to revisit site allocations
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:40:07 ▶
Said in the meeting“examination is the way forward for those concerns that are still outstanding so I'm not recommending that members revisit the site allocations in the plan”
The minutesany objections must be addressed through the examination, as the Plan cannot be materially amended without undertaking a further consultation exercise.
The minutes do not record the explicit advice not to revisit site allocations, or that the extra time would only be used to resolve outstanding issues (00:40:39). Relevant to requests to remove EXMO20.
Habitats compliance to be reached by submission; evidence may be amended without consultation
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:41:01 ▶
Said in the meeting“to ensure that the plan is legally compliant at the point of submission which is the requirement so that's that's what we're currently doing um as I said there's not an intention to carry out further consultation at this stage we are entitled to update and amend evidence documents in the run up to submission”
The minutesWork is ongoing with the Council’s consultants to resolve outstanding issues and ensure the Local Plan is legally compliant. At this stage, there is no intention to undertake further public consultations as part of the Plan process.
The minutes do not record that compliance is aimed at the point of submission (after both Regulation 19 consultations) or the stated entitlement to amend evidence documents before submission without further consultation.
Reason for the delay: Habitat Regulations Assessment, a legal compliance issue
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 00:44:38 ▶
Said in the meeting“however due to ongoing work in particular around the Habitat Regulations assessment work which has already been mentioned which is a legal compliance issue we're not in a position to submit the plan as per the adopted local development scheme”
The minutesalthough approval for submission to examination had originally been anticipated at this meeting, this could not be achieved to a number of outstanding supporting documents.
The minutes do not name the HRA as the main cause or record it as a legal compliance issue ('the real issue', 00:49:19), nor that a new timetable could not be set until further HRA meetings (00:45:29).
Officer confirms EXMO20 adds to traffic over the Pebblebed Heaths
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:32:04 ▶
Said in the meeting“Obviously, EXMO20, as has been said, does contribute to the uplift in vehicle movements over the Pebblehead Heaps.”
The minutesa large number of allocations within the Plan have implications for air quality and that officers are therefore considering the cumulative impacts of the overall strategy.
The minutes record the question about EXMO20 traffic and the cumulative answer, but not the officer's confirmation that EXMO20 contributes to the uplift over the SAC/SPA.
What happens if no adequate air quality mitigation is found
Important Minutes much briefer · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:32:48 ▶
Said in the meeting“should we get to a position where we can't come up with an adequate mitigation strategy then you know all things need to be considered as potential ways of addressing those but we're not at the point yet of looking at individual sites and revisiting allocations”
The minutesWork is ongoing to explore potential mitigation measures, and it was confirmed that, following a forthcoming meeting with the consultant team, a further update report would be brought to Committee as the matter progresses.
The minutes do not record that revisiting allocations was left open if mitigation fails, or that individual sites were not being looked at yet. Relevant to whether EXMO20 depends on an unfinished mitigation strategy.
Air quality harm on the heaths: existing problem, earlier evidence did not exist
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:34:40 ▶
Said in the meeting“consider the impact of the growth in the plan and how it makes that situation worse but it's not that we're creating a problem through through the plan as drafted it's an existing problem that we weren't previously aware of because you know the guidance from Natural England the studies the work didn't exist to understand these impacts”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The officer said plan growth makes an existing air quality problem on the heaths worse, and that the guidance and studies did not previously exist. Relevant to the order of evidence and site selection (2024).
400 m heaths zone: access roads and commercial uses
Important Not in the minutes · Ed Freeman (officer) · 01:43:17 ▶
Said in the meeting“the 400 meter zone is is is more about um particularly residential development uh and and the impacts of that on the 400 meters and and the Pebblebed Heaths I know there's some disagreement over how we should interpret it in terms of commercial developments which perhaps we need to clarify”
The minutesNot recorded in the minutes.
The minutes do not record the question about an EXMO20 access road through the 400 m zone, the officer's view that a road is allowed, or his acknowledgement that the rule for commercial uses is disputed and may need clarifying.
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.