The Local Authority has noticed that RWE missed off three visual montages which are part of the draft Environmental Statement (ES) from publishing on their website. I.e. these had been included in the hard copy ES that were on display at various local access points but not provided on the appllicant's consultation website. He was therefore wondering whether there is anything in the regulations that required RWE to exactly replicate all their hard copy consultation documents on their website.
So far he has drawn the discrepancy to the attention of RWE who have told him that they have now put the previously missing montages on the web and also asked him whether there's anything else that he thought they needed to do in order to make good the oversight. Could the IPC provide advice on this matter.

Further to our telephone conversation earlier this week, just to confirm and expand the advice I have given you with regards to RWE missing off a number of visual montages from publishing on their consultation website although they are part of the hard copy draft ES consultation document displayed at various local access points. I understand that you have already pointed out this omission to RWE who have since up-loaded those documents to their website to bring it in line with the hard copy consultation material. Given the relevance of this advice to the applicant's pre-application consultation, I'm also copying this email to Bethan Thomas of RWE.
As whether or not an applicant has complied with the obligations set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) and relevant secondary legislation and had regard to the statutory guidance on consultation under the Act is an acceptance decision under s.55(e), the IPC cannot advise on what (if anything) is required in this case. This would be providing advice on the merits of a case and prejudicing the acceptance decision. It is for the applicant to be satisfied, taking their own legal advice, that they have complied with the requirements of Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act (pre-application procedure).
S.42 requires the applicant to consult all prescribed consultees (as per Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs) reg 3 and schedule 1) . The applicant may therefore also want to consider whether the omission has any implications for the consultation carried out under s.42.
S.47(7) requires the applicant to consult the local community in accordance with the proposals set out in the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC), after having sought the relevant local authority's advice on the SOCC. Again, it is for the applicant to demonstrate in the consultation report that the community consultation carried out accords with the published SOCC. Para 62 of the CLG Guidance on pre-application consultation sets out suggestions for consulting using a range of methods and highlights that these "are not intended to be exhaustive or compulsory".
S.55(4) sets out what the Commission must have regard to in reaching its decision on whether or not the applicant has complied with the pre-application procedure set out in the Act, namely the applicant's consultation report, any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee, and the extent to which the applicant has had regard to any guidance issued under s.50 of the Act.
In commenting on the applicant's consultation report at acceptance stage your authority will therefore have the opportunity to express any views about the omission of the documents from the applicant's consultation website for part of the consultation period and how the applicant has subsequently responded to addressing any potential impacts of the omission. If you have any particular view about this, it would therefore seem reasonable to express this to the applicant at this stage, to give the applicant the opportunity to take your views into account in deciding whether or not anything else is required to address the issue.