Please find attached a note in response to your letter, dated 23rd July, which you might like to share with your Chief Executive. I apologise for the length but as you will see a large portion of it is an extract from LRCH's latest Scoping Opinion. I think it is important that this is placed 'on the record' as it is very evident that the Applicant has been less than honest with The Inspectorate and its Officers, MHCLG and the taxpayer! The only section I would like a response to is the last paragraph as many people cannot understand why this was not included in your Scoping Opinion when it was so evident in the various responses. I am extremely grateful for the time you have taken to deal with this enquiry but I think the one lesson that has to be learnt from this 'commercial NSIP' is that the facts have to be true and not made up as the Applicant goes along.

Thank you for your email of 7 August 2020 regarding the application by London Resort Company Holdings Limited for an order granting development consent for the London Resort Project, specifically in relation to the Planning Inspectorate’s letter of 23 July 2020 in response to your email of 15 July 2020. We value your comments in explaining the relationship between Peninsula Management Group (PMG) and parties potentially affected by the proposed development and that PMG has no legal and professional advice concerning land acquisition and the compulsory acquisition process. In relation to your comment on the Secretary of State direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), can you please provide clarity as to which meeting note/s express that the project would meet ‘NSIP criteria in terms of economic regeneration, cross-council boundary issues etc’. We are unable to find this specific advice in any of the meeting notes published under s51 of PA2008. In relation to your comments on participation in the scoping process, we reiterate our position that the scoping opinion adopted by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State is formed on the basis of information provided by the Applicant. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to raise these with your local authority, Dartford Borough Council and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. In relation to your comments on the land required for the project, the applicant has revised their project site boundary throughout the pre-application process. The applicant has launched the statutory consultation phase of their project. Earlier rounds on non-statutory consultation are used by the applicant to help inform the final project; the statutory consultation exercise should be considered as the official consultation in regard to any submitted application for a Development Consent Order. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July – 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: attachment 1 The site meeting that took place on 10 November 2015, which included viewing the Manor Way Industrial Estate is documented in a meeting note: attachment 2;ipcadvice=e4922a0577 No specific information is included in this meeting note in regard to the industrial estate and we cannot speculate as to any discussion that may have taken place between parties. As there is no documented evidence of questions being asked about the impact on the businesses, then we must conclude that none were asked. In determining if the application is of a sufficient standard to be accepted for examination, the Inspectorate can only make a decision on the final application submitted. In response to your query on the content of the Scoping Opinion, it should be noted that section 7 of the Scoping Report does describe the displacement of existing businesses and jobs as a matter that would be included in the assessment of socio-economic effects resulting from the Proposed Development. The Inspectorate’s advice (see section 4.1 of the Scoping Opinion, items 4.12 and 4.13) requested clarity regarding the study area and receptors to be included in the socio-economic assessment. This encompasses all the receptors likely to experience significant socio-economic effects. The Applicant was also advised to agree the receptors with the relevant consultation bodies, which would include the local authorities and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.