Dear Sir, I wrote to you on 13th February 2023 regarding further inadequacies of the consultation which has taken place with the residents of Cowfold regarding the Rampion 2 proposals. Attached was a document challenging Rampions ‘Promoting Rampion 2 consultations with Cowfold 2021-22' letter. It now appears that Cowfold Parish Council have revised their original statement regarding communications between Rampion and the Parish Council (see attached document). Their denial of receiving any more than the residents themselves was originally made to members of the public at Parish Council meetings in December 2022 and January 2023 and reiterated in the attached email form the parish clerk. This means that Rampion are correct in their statement that the scoping report was received, that Donna Everest attended zoom meetings and that a poster was placed on the Council noticeboard in 2021 (however it was the only poster, and on display at a time when most people were still making only essential journeys). However, it does not alter in any way the main points the parish council raised in public letters to Rampion, nor does it exonerate Rampion from any of the other inadequacies of consultation we highlighted in the critique, or the body of evidence we have sent to the Planning Inspectorate and WSCC. Also, it is Rampion's responsibility to communicate the consultation to the public, not that of the parish council It also confirms our view that almost nobody in the parish was aware of the proposals in 2021 as the only correspondence they have listed from residents in the first round of consultation was from the owner of Oakendene himself. Yours faithfully Meera Smethurst CowfoldvRampion

Good afternoon Ms Smethurst, I hope you are well. I am the case manager on this project currently and firstly wanted to introduce myself. I took over this project last month and have spent some time going through your emails and concerns regarding the proposals and consultation. I know you have spoken to my colleague, Caroline, who advised you to raise all concerns with the Applicant in the first instance. I can see that most emails with PINs copied in have been raised with either the Local Authority (LA) or the Applicant. Regarding the email you forwarded below, I would like to clarify the advice you have been given. The project mailbox is open for your concerns and resident concerns regarding a scheme. However, given that this project is still in the pre application stage, which is entirely driven by the Applicant, concerns should be made directly to the Applicant and LA. By contacting both the Applicant and LA your concerns may form part of the LA’s adequacy of consultation response (AoCR), which is submitted to us during the acceptance stage. PINs are unable to comment on or consider representations prior to submission, hence our recommendation to contact the applicant and LA. However, after reading through your emails, I note your frustrations and ongoing concerns with the project and understand you have been copying us in for completeness. Comments have been filed and will be available to the Examining Authority in due course. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for the public to register as Interested Parties and make a Relevant Representation on the Proposed Development. As you may be aware, we have a series of Advice Notes on our website and you may find Advice Notes 8 – 8.6 helpful in providing more information on the Planning Act 2008 stages and processes. In the meantime, you are able to continue to copy this mailbox into correspondence you deem necessary, but I stress the importance of directing your concerns and comments to both the LA and Applicant during the pre-application stage. I trust this clarifies any confusion and apologise for responses being delayed. If you require anything further, please use this mailbox and either myself or one of my team will pick it up. Kindest, Emily Davies Case Manager