Please see attached.

Under the EIA Regulations, the Applicant’s Environmental Statement must include “a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the applicant, which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment”. The Planning Inspectorate does not have a remit to exert particular influence on their consideration of alternatives in EIA terms, beyond that which is required as defined above. There are also references in the National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure EN-1 (Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy) and EN-3 (National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure) about how the Secretary of State will consider alternatives in their decision making. As part of the Applicant’s statutory consultation duty, they are obliged to consult on ‘preliminary environmental information’ as defined in the EIA Regulations. There is a legal duty on the Applicant to demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses received under section 49 of the Planning Act itself. Your consultation response may include information about alternatives to the project, and the best point at which to raise these matters is in response to the Applicant’s current formal, statutory consultation (running to 16 September 2021). The Inspectorate would therefore advise you to ensure you submit a response to the current consultation. One of the principles of the Planning Act 2008 is “front loading” of the process, with the intention that matters such as alternatives that you wish to raise are made to the Applicant in the pre-application period, which they then have regard to in finalising their application (eg reasons as to why they are not feasible etc). If an application is accepted for Examination, you (and anyone else) are able to register as an Interested Party and make submissions (having considered the Applicant’s application), and this may include matters relating to alternatives. The Examining Authority then has regard to such submissions in their consideration of the evidence and the case for development consent. Although there is a duty to consider submissions made by Interested Parties, the Examining Authority has discretion as to how they conduct their Examination of the issues, and whether or not/ how they pursue relevant matters raised by Interested Parties. The Acceptance stage is purely for the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be accepted for Examination. In particular, whether the Applicant has met its consultation duties. It does not make any decision on the outcome of the DCO application or the merits of the scheme at this stage, nor is there any opportunity for Interested Parties to make submissions, which comes after any decision to accept an application. However, we will seek the views of the relevant local authorities on the adequacy of the consultation undertaken by the Applicant. Local Impact Report Section 60(2)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 states that each local authority that is identified within section 56A of the Planning Act are invited to submit a Local Impact Report. As the boundaries for each scheme differ, we cannot assume that the same local authorities will be identified under section 56A and invited to submit a Local Impact Report. If Adur and Worthing Councils fall within this category they will be invited to submit a Local Impact report at the relevant deadline in the examination, which will be set by the Examining Authority. We advise all councils to look at Advice Note One on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, which provides guidance on what to include in a Local Impact Report. Also Advice Note Two, which explains the role of local authorities in the DCO process. The Planning Inspectorate thanks you for the invitation to observe the public meeting, however, due to resource pressures we are not able to attend and in general, given our quasi-judicial role in the process, we tend not to participate or observe meetings of this nature, to avoid any perception of prejudice.