Dear Emily Davies Community Groups, MPs and residents, are surprised and disappointed at the decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate under delegated authority, to accept the Rampion 2 Wind Farm off the Sussex Coast for Examination. This was especially unexpected when taking into consideration the very limited conditions offered in the S51 Advice to the Applicant, and the documented breaches of the Developer’s own Statement of Community Consultation. We appreciate the S51 Advice issued 7 September does pick up on some concerns raised on the lack of respect for the prescribed use of the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ as the basis for pre-application consultation and statutory comment on the likely extent and significance of impacts. The preferred development the Applicant announced in fact steps well outside the “worst case” envelope formally consulted, even accounting for flexibility in applying the Envelope method as in PINS Advisory Note Nine. We draw your attention to the S51 advice letter indicating “the Inspectorate considers there remains inconsistency with regards the quantum of WTGs sought by the Order. The DCO states “no more than/must not exceed” 90 in total, yet no assessment of that number forms part of Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement (seascape, landscape and visual impact assessment), where it appears that only 65 WTGs have been assessed”; and “It is therefore unclear what is considered as the worst-case scenario.” See footnote 1. The Applicant in effect has failed (spectacularly, we argue) to consult on the Preferred Development proposed in its Application, well beyond what is reasonable as flexibility in defining a "worst case". Considering the DCO process has front-loaded consultations only, this is quite a concerning matter. The most concerning aspect is that the “worst case” as it may be re-defined will not have been the subject of formal consultation by the Public or statutory consultees. The Applicant in effect failed to consult on the preferred development proposed in its Application. Considering the DCO process has front-loaded consultations only, it is a relevant and important matter as the NPSs all stress the need to ensure that the significant effects of a Proposed Development have been properly assessed. There are also clearly documented failings of the SoCC which have been identified by directly affected communities that also remain - and require resolution, as well as being identified by our area MPs. We would direct you to Andrew Griffith’s website for example. attachment 1 attachment 2 Given the circumstances, we are now exploring the possibility of a Judicial Review of the Acceptance Decision applying under the Aarhus Convention on the Environment to seek a reasonable remedy. However, even if that were permitted by the Courts, we would still much prefer a collaborative approach, in the manner that communities previously suggested in adopting a Conditional Approval. It is our understanding that within PINS Advisory Notes it is stated that the Examining Authority may decide whether AoC concerns can be taken into account both during the Pre-Examination and Examination stages. We fully expect affiliates of Protect Coastal Sussex (PCS) will raise AoC concerns in a Relevant Representation to inform the ExA and request consideration of an appropriate remedy. Statutory Consultees such as Horsham District Council (HDC) have also commented on the need to take time to address residual AoC concerns and the resulting large number of unanswered questions from both statutory consultees, and members of the public. For reference, HDC quotes herewith: “Therefore, only if the Application is accepted will HDC be able to review the full suite of Application documents and make a considered and informed judgement. However, this will require extensive resourcing to review and comment within a constrained timescale. With substantial and complex work still to be done, there may not be adequate opportunity for the Examining Authority to undertake its work fully in six months from the Preliminary Meeting.” “Accordingly, should the Application be accepted HDC requests that PINS, as Examining Authority, ensures adequate time is allowed to address these matters in Pre-examination before formal commencement of the Examination, in using its discretion in setting a date for the Preliminary Meeting and maintaining dialogue with HDC and the Applicant to enable progress to be made. HDC considers this would be beneficial to the Applicant and the Examining Authority.” (Footnote 2) We hope therefore, that this is something PINS could look at positively, specifically helping to facilitate rather than oppose the beneficial actions that we proposed for Conditional Acceptance, like the current S51 Advice does though in a limited manner. For interest and information only, we attach a copy of the Press Release offering our public response to the Acceptance decision. The Press Release sets out a positive way forward for affiliates to register as Interested Parties to make specific representations that we believe will contribute towards a more efficient Examination and raise confidence in this DCO outcome in coastal and inland communities. Media coverage of the community reaction may also be seen here: attachment 3 Recognising this is outside the remit of PINS and the Examination, again for interest and information only, we also attach a 2-page summary of the Protect Coastal Sussex consultation response to the National Energy Policy update exercise that closed mid-June 2023 now being considered within Government, which we have shared directly with the relevant Parliamentary Committees and Ministers. We very much hope that important NPS amendments are made to address clear policy inconsistencies, and specifically to avoid the acceptance of wind farms that do not respect the Government’s own Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA) advice, to thus avoid local social and ecological harms and this stress, disruption and division of local communities. Yours sincerely Secretary Protect Coastal Sussex On behalf of PCS Co-Chairs: Chris Lee, Aldwick Melanie Jones, Middleton on Sea Lawrence Haas, Littlehampton Meera Smethurst, Cowfold

Good afternoon, Thank you for your email below raising your concerns about the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to accept the Rampion 2 project for Examination. Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out the criteria for deciding whether the application should be accepted for examination: • whether the application is one for an order granting development consent; • whether the Applicant has complied with Chapter 2 of the Act (pre-application consultation); • whether the application is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers to be satisfactory. The Inspectorate carried out a comprehensive review of the submitted application during the acceptance stage and the conclusions are fully set out in the Section 55 Checklist. As you will see from the checklist, the Inspectorate sought views of host and neighbouring Local Authorities on the adequacy of the pre-application consultation. Please be assured that the responses, together with responses from other parties, were fully considered when reaching the conclusion that the Applicant had met the statutory consultation duties set out in sections 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the PA2008. The Adequacy of Consultation Responses have been published on the project page. As indicated in the Section 55 checklist, and the advice issued to the Applicant under s51 of the PA2008, the Inspectorate highlighted some observations and documents which the Inspectorate considered should be reviewed and updated by the Applicant, to assist all parties involved in the Examination. The Inspectorate does not consider that any of these matters individually, or cumulatively, led the application to not be of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination. It should be noted that any advice issued by the Inspectorate under s51 of the PA2008 is advice only; it is not legally binding. As you will be aware, the opportunity for parties to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation is live; running until 23.59 on Monday 6 November 2023. We would encourage you to register as an Interested Party to submit your representations on the Proposed Development, including any concerns about the information submitted by the Applicant; this will enable you to fully participate in the Examination, both in writing and orally at Hearings. In conclusion, whilst your concerns about the acceptance decision are noted, there is no mechanism under the PA2008 to revisit an acceptance decision; this can only be overturned by way of a successful Judicial Review. As such, the Inspectorate’s position remains as that set out in the s55 checklist and s51 advice. However, it is open to you to seek your own independent legal advice on this matter. Please note that in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), the e-mail below, and a copy of my response will be published to the project webpage. I am sorry if this information is not the response you were hoping for. If you have any further queries in relation to the above or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest,