Planning Act 2008: Guidance on preparing an application: Part 1 - Pre-application steps

1. The purpose of this guidance

1.1 The pre-application stage prior to the submission of an application for an order granting development consent under the Planning Act 2008 (“the Planning Act”) is crucial to ensure proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) applications are prepared in line with relevant National Policy Statements (NPS). Applicants must also take into account relevant legislation and policies (including Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) from 2 November 2026) where applicable to the proposed DCO application. In all cases, the application submitted to the Planning Inspectorate must be of a satisfactory standard in order for it to be accepted for examination.

1.2 Under section 50(2) of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to assist applicants, setting out what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take in preparing an application for development consent for submission. Alongside other relevant parts of National Infrastructure Planning Guidance, this part sets out best practice for preparing DCO applications and is intended to support smoother and more efficient pre-application processes. There is no statutory requirement for applicants to engage or consult during the pre-application stage, and nothing in this guidance should be read as creating such a requirement. However, applicants may choose to consult and engage in order to support the evolution of their proposals and the preparation of their DCO application. This guidance makes recommendations but is not intended to be prescriptive, in particular in relation to approaches to engagement and consultation. Applicants must have regard to this guidance to assist them in complying with the requirements of section 48 of the Planning Act.

1.3 Part 1 of this guidance covers the:

• statutory requirements of applicants during the pre-application stage of a DCO application
• range of matters an applicant is recommended to consider, but on which the applicant should reach their own views, when preparing a DCO application, and
• matters which are relevant to everyone involved in the NSIP planning process

1.4 This part should be read in conjunction with Part 2: Application contents and Part 3: Contents of a Draft DCO. This guidance should also be read in conjunction with the Introduction to National Infrastructure Planning Guidance, which includes information about audience, legal status and territorial extent of the full guidance suite.

2. Statutory requirements

2.1 Section 14(1) of the Planning Act sets out the projects which are considered a NSIP, if they meet the relevant thresholds set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act. If a proposed development is, with regard to the thresholds in Part 3, of a type that is defined as an NSIP, it must be consented by way of a DCO.

2.2 The Secretary of State may, by order, amend section 14(1) of the Planning Act to vary the types of projects that can be considered an NSIP as well as the thresholds set out in the Planning Act. Provision is also made under section 35 of the Planning Act for the Secretary of State to direct that a project which is not an NSIP is to be treated as development for which a DCO is required, where the statutory tests are met. The effect of this is to bring the project into the remit of the Planning Act regime.

2.3 Conversely, under section 35B of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State may direct that development which would otherwise fall within the definition of an NSIP, with regard to section 14 of the Planning Act, and therefore require a DCO, should instead proceed through another consenting route, where the Secretary of State considers that an alternative regime would be appropriate, and the relevant statutory conditions are satisfied. Further guidance on section 35 and 35B directions is provided in Guidance on powers to direct a project into or out of the NSIP regime.

2.4 During the pre-application stage, an applicant must comply with the notification and publicity obligations set out in sections 46 and 48 of the Planning Act. Applicants must also consider, where relevant, whether they are subject to any other statutory requirements including (but not limited to):

• The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (“the EIA Regulations”)
• Water Environment (Water Framework Directive)(England and Wales) Regulations 2017  (“the Water Framework Regulations”)
• Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (for Marine Conservation Zones)
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and their offshore equivalent, The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, collectively referred to as “the Habitats Regulations”
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
• National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
• Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

2.5 BNG will become mandatory for NSIPs from 2 November 2026. Biodiversity gain statements set out how NSIPs must calculate, deliver and report on BNG, and have the same effect as if they were included in an NPS.

Notification

2.6 Under section 46 of the Planning Act an applicant is required to notify the Secretary of State (in practice the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State), host local authorities (the local authority or authorities in whose area a proposed DCO application lies) and, where relevant, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) of a proposed DCO application.    The applicant must supply the information referred to in section 46(1C) of the Planning Act. and other statutory requirements as relevant, principally a summary of the proposed DCO application.

2.7 In addition to the statutory requirements, applicants are also encouraged to set out in the notification:

• whether the proposed DCO application is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development
• whether the proposed DCO application is expected to require one or more deemed marine licences (when notifying the MMO (in England)
• a link to an up-to-date project webpage, with the notification also published on that webpage

2.8 Once an applicant has submitted a notification, the expectation is that further notifications will not be required in response to changes to the proposed DCO application. However, where those changes would result in a materially different application, applicants should re-notify  the Secretary of State and others as detailed above. Where changes to a proposed DCO application would involve a change to the host local authority or authorities (for example, resulting from a change to the Order Limits of the proposed DCO application), applicants should notify the newly affected host local authority or authorities.

Publicity

2.9 The applicant must publicise the proposed DCO application   in accordance with section 48 of the Planning Act, Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations and Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009  (“the APFP Regulations”). Applicants must also have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to assist them in complying with section 48 of the Planning Act (relevant guidance on section 48 of the Planning Act is contained in this guidance and Part 2: Application contents).

2.10 Given the overlap between the statutory requirements for notification and publicity in the Planning Act, APFP Regulations and EIA Regulations, applicants should carry out these activities at the same time, with the required information made available on the applicant’s website. There is no prescribed point during the pre-application stage at which an applicant must make a notification under section 46 of the Planning Act or publicise a proposed DCO application under section 48 of the Planning Act. However, applicants are encouraged to do so as early as possible, and where practicable, not less than 6 months before submission of the DCO application. This will allow sufficient time for stakeholders (such as local communities, public authorities, statutory undertakers and potentially affected landowners) to become aware of the proposal.

2.11 The APFP Regulations set out the manner in which the applicant must publicise the proposed DCO application. Principally the notice must include a summary of the main proposals, whether the proposed DCO application is an EIA development, a statement that the  documents, plans and maps showing the nature and location of the proposed development can be inspected online   free of charge, with the address of a website maintained by the applicant and the date on which those documents will be available for inspection on that website.

2.12 This website should, where appropriate, include plain-language summaries of lengthy  documents, supporting maps or visual aids, and clear version control so that those using the materials are confident that they are accessing the document they need. In the course of any engagement or consultation on the proposed DCO application, applicants are encouraged to provide reasonable non-digital access (such as hard copies) of the same documents on request at local venues where suitable, to prevent digital exclusion.

2.13 Further to the requirement in Regulation 4(2)(a) of the APFP Regulations to publish a notice for at least two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers, applicants should also consider publishing a notice on other suitable online public notice platforms for the same duration.

2.14 Under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) will, where it is determined that the proposed development is an EIA development:

• notify the relevant consultation bodies, as defined in the EIA Regulations, of the applicant’s name and address and the duties imposed on the consultation bodies (Regulation 11(1)(a))
• inform the applicant of those bodies notified (Regulation 11(1)(b)),and
• notify the applicant of any person it considers to be actually or potentially affected by or have an interest in the proposed development or be unlikely to become aware of the proposed development (Regulation 11(1)(c))

2.15 Under Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations, the applicant must, at the same time as publishing its section 48 notice, send a copy of that notice to the consultation bodies and persons identified by the Secretary of State under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations (including those identified in Regulation 11(1)(a) and/or (1)(c)).

2.16 Where an applicant requests a scoping opinion under Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, the Planning Inspectorate, in practice, may ask for further information from the applicant at that stage to support the identification of consultation bodies and other relevant persons. This can assist the Secretary of State in preparing to carry out the notification requirements under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations at the appropriate stage.

3. Principles of pre-application

3.1 It is recommended that applicants consider their pre-application strategy against the backdrop of any relevant NPS. Pre-application processes are expected to be carried out in a way which is proportionate to the nature of each proposed development, so that they are effective without being unnecessarily time-consuming and burdensome for the applicant, statutory bodies, organisations, local authorities and local communities affected by the proposed development.

3.2 Applicants are encouraged  to engage with relevant stakeholders, which can include local communities, public authorities (such as statutory bodies, local authorities, and non-statutory bodies), relevant statutory undertakers, and those who may be directly affected by the proposed development (such as landowners and occupiers) so they are aware of the proposed development and have the opportunity to contribute to its evolution. The applicant can benefit from the specialist, technical and local knowledge of these stakeholders as they develop and refine their proposal. Doing this can minimise risk through the early identification of issues and work to address these ahead of examination, which should prevent delays, and reduce overall timeframes and costs to applicants.

3.3 Applicants are encouraged to consider the following overarching principles when preparing a DCO application and engaging with public authorities and others during the pre-application stage. These principles provide a consistent framework for what good pre-application processes look like, while allowing approaches to be tailored to the nature, scale and complexity of each proposed development.

Principle 1: Prioritising front-loading 

3.4 Applicants are encouraged to identify key issues early, communicate these as part of their pre-application engagement and/or consultation with stakeholders, and make progress to address these before submission of a proposed DCO application through ongoing, constructive dialogue. A well-developed DCO application will include sufficient levels of information to assist the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State in understanding the impacts and mitigations of the proposed development, and resolving (as far as possible) key issues that could otherwise take more time than necessary in examination, or be a barrier to the granting of a development consent order. This front-loading approach, however, does not mean every matter must be fully resolved before the submission of a DCO application.

Principle 2: Proportionality   

3.5 A proportionate approach to preparing DCO applications and undertaking pre-application engagement and/or consultation means identifying and understanding early the key issues that must be explored, addressed and decided during the DCO application process. This will enable key issues to be resolved prior to examination in many cases, with efficient examination of remaining issues by the Examining Authority.

3.6 Applicants are recommended to engage and/or consult with communities, public authorities, relevant statutory undertakers and landowners and occupiers, as soon as a proposed development has been progressed enough to enable stakeholders to be informed about the nature, scale and complexity of the proposal. The most valuable responses to engagement and/or consultation are likely to be given where enough information is provided to enable a good understanding of the proposal and its impacts. As noted above, doing this early may avoid multiple rounds of engagement and/or consultation that do not add value to the proposed DCO application, improve clarity or help to progress key issues. Proportionality can also mean that where a proposed DCO application has specific issues that require greater focus, applicants can divert more resource to engaging with the most relevant stakeholders.

3.7 Where matters are settled in relevant policy or strategic spatial plans (for example within NPS, or forthcoming spatial plans such as the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan or the Centralised Strategic Network Plan), engagement is most effective when focused on how the scheme is designed, mitigated and delivered.

Principle 3: Openness and transparency 

3.8 Applicants are encouraged to be open and transparent about the purpose of engagement and/or consultation, including what information is available, what views or input is being sought, and the scope for changes. This might include sharing information about the alternatives and options being considered (where relevant); and the timescales they are working towards. It includes being clear about the primary potential impacts of a proposal, without which engagement and/or consultation will be of limited value. Information  should be presented in a way that is easy to find (e.g. on a project website), understand and tailored for different audiences using plain language.

3.9 It is recommended that applicants consider accessibility and inclusion across their approach to engagement and/or consultation throughout the pre-application process. A digital-first approach can support wider access, but applicants are encouraged to ensure information is also available in alternative formats where applicants consider these are needed or where requested. Where an applicant seeks views from stakeholders on a proposal, it will assist stakeholders if it is made clear what aspects of a proposed development are fixed, what is still being developed, what feedback can influence, and how responses will be taken into account in progressing the proposed DCO application. This will support meaningful and constructive engagement and/or consultation on proposals.

Principle 4: Timeliness 

3.10 Applicants are encouraged to approach engagement and/or consultation in a timely manner that fits within the overall programme for preparation of the proposed DCO application. To facilitate efficiency in the pre-application process, applicants are encouraged to be collaborative in their engagement and/or consultation, particularly where there are multiple DCO applications, either being prepared or already granted, or where other infrastructure development is proposed in the vicinity of the proposed development area, to reduce duplication and confusion for local communities.

3.11 Applicants may wish to set timeframes and response deadlines that are appropriate to the matter under consideration. Equally, it is important that stakeholders, if they choose to respond, do so in a timely manner. Applicants are encouraged to set clear and realistic response windows for feedback and communicate when and how applicants can respond to it (where relevant).

4. Pre-application engagement and consultation

4.1 Applicants are encouraged to engage and/or consult, with the objectives of:

• identifying key issues specific to each proposed development early in the process
• improving the design of projects
• informing the preparation of proposed DCO applications
• reducing delays and uncertainty
• ultimately, minimising, where possible, the number of issues that need to be considered during examination

4.2 In deciding the extent of any engagement and/or consultation to carry out, applicants are encouraged to ensure that it is:

• planned and timed so that stakeholders can have the opportunity to influence proposals before key aspects of the proposed development are fixed
• accessible and inclusive (such as considering the differing language and literacy requirements of affected communities, including ethnic minorities and provision for those who may be digitally excluded)
• where appropriate, sufficiently detailed and technical to enable public authorities to provide informed advice
• helpful in developing a proposed DCO application by identifying and addressing key issues early with the aim of reducing the risk of new or avoidable issues emerging during examination

4.3 The terms “engagement” and “‘consultation” for the purpose of this guidance are defined below and examples of each are provided. This has been informed by experience through the NSIP planning process and reflects feedback from those engaging with it. The use and extent of the below methods is entirely at the applicant’s discretion and is not a consideration for whether an application will be accepted for examination.

4.4 The applicant’s ability, under Regulation 11(3) of the EIA Regulations, to request to enter into consultation with the Secretary of State, the relevant authority and consultation bodies to determine whether they possess information which is considered relevant to the preparation of the Environmental Statement (ES) and the duty on such parties to provide such information remains unchanged.

Engagement

4.5 Engagement is ongoing dialogue and relationship-building between the applicant and stakeholders and is typically iterative across the life of project development, not just at a single point in time. Engagement can help applicants identify opportunities, risks and issues early in the preparation of a proposed DCO application, test options and refine the application for submission.

4.6 Common methods of engagement on proposed DCO applications include:

• early stakeholder mapping and ongoing liaison so relevant stakeholders can be identified and included as appropriate
• regular technical meetings or working groups with public authorities, timed so that input can influence design and assessment approaches where appropriate
• topic-focused workshops to identify key risks and  consider what further work may be needed in relation to, for example, transport, flood risk, biodiversity, heritage, construction impacts or cumulative effects
• ongoing community and landowner/occupier engagement to help build understanding, trust, and to test emerging proposals. This could occur via briefings, local drop-ins, community forums, or targeted sessions on specific impacts.

4.7 Some forms of engagement can also include:

a) Communication: Providing clear, accessible information about a project and process, including information such as what is proposed, what has changed as the project has progressed, what happens next, and how people can get involved. This is usually one-way information sharing but can be designed to meet local contexts and circumstances to help people find the right information that is easy to understand. Communication as part of DCO applications might involve:

• a project webpage that is kept up to date, with clear signposting to the most recent information including accessible plans and maps
• issuing newsletters (physical and/or electronic) or updates at key project milestones (e.g. when options are refined or other key project information is published)
• providing suitable material for local media and stakeholders to use in their own communications
• providing briefings to Elected members and Committee members at affected local authorities, and to relevant Parish and Town Councils

b) Collaboration: An intensive form of engagement, particularly valuable for complex topics, cross-boundary impacts, and where there are dependencies on other consents or regulatory regimes. Stakeholders work together in a structured, outcome-focused way to co-develop solutions, resolve issues, or narrow disagreements. Collaboration on DCO applications could include:

• joint issue-resolution sessions with stakeholders (e.g. to agree assessment methodologies, mitigation approaches or draft DCO requirements)
• multi-agency meetings where responsibilities overlap to avoid duplication, prevent conflicting advice and agree a coordinated approach
• developing voluntary evidence plans
• collaborative planning across related consenting regimes (e.g., early alignment with permitting and licensing processes where these could affect project delivery)
• collaborative planning with local authority boundaries so dependencies can be identified and managed early

Consultation

4.8 Consultation is generally a structured and time-bound process for seeking views on defined proposals, or aspects of them. The applicant will obtain the most useful feedback if they   provide sufficient information for stakeholders to understand what is proposed, and what aspects of the proposed development are open to influence. The applicant should give clear methods and timeframes for responding.

4.9 Consultation can include:

• public exhibitions and drop-in events within affected communities, with opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback
• publishing online consultation materials (e.g. via virtual exhibitions, webinars and online feedback tools)
• having multiple response methods (e.g. online forms, email, phone, freepost or paper feedback forms) to support inclusivity and accessibility
• targeted consultation where impacts are concentrated on a specific area, relate  to specific topics, or may impact a specific category of people

Benefits of pre-application engagement and consultation in supporting the preparation of applications    

4.10 As with other planning regimes, pre-application engagement and/or   consultation is best practice to identify issues at an early stage and help shape proposals. Engagement and/or consultation  on proposed developments allows stakeholders the opportunity to influence how nationally significant infrastructure can be accommodated in a particular area. Engagement and/or consultation enables applicants to benefit from the knowledge of stakeholders to more effectively shape proposals.

4.11 From a stakeholder’s perspective, engaging in pre-application consultation, for example, advising on mitigation proposals to reduce a proposed development’s impact on the local community and environment, does not prejudice or undermine any future representation by a stakeholder on the principle of whether or not development consent should be granted.

4.12 Pre-application engagement and/or consultation can bring about significant benefits for all parties, by:

• enabling the applicant to obtain important information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of a proposed development from stakeholders, which can help rule out unsuitable options
• helping the applicant to identify and understand opportunities, risks and issues, and take action to address these at the earliest stage to mitigate the overall risk to the planning process for the proposed DCO application
• helping to identify potential environmental impacts and licensing or permitting requirements early in project development, which can be used to inform the design process to avoid or mitigate impacts where appropriate
• increasing awareness of other consented or proposed DCO applications and relevant projects in the area, to help inform better design and support the effective identification and assessment of potential cumulative impacts
• enabling the early identification of adverse effects from the outset, so that these can be addressed through appropriate avoidance, reduction, or mitigation, and incorporated into the proposed DCO application, or, where adverse effects cannot be fully mitigated, through appropriate compensatory measures where required
• helping local authorities, statutory and non-statutory bodies to plan and target their resources (particularly where capacity is constrained) by providing early sight of likely key issues
• building trust and confidence among communities and stakeholders which can help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits, minimise any disbenefits and reduce the risk of new issues emerging in the examination process
• narrowing areas of disagreement between an applicant and stakeholders to focus on the key issues, with the aim of addressing these where possible prior to submission of a DCO application, supporting the earlier identification of key issues to inform the Examining Authority’s Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPI), enabling a more focused, proportionate and efficient examination

4.13 It is for applicants to judge how best to approach any pre-application engagement and/or consultation, but it is recommended that this is proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposed development and timed to enable meaningful feedback . For larger or more complex projects, early engagement on project principles, options and emerging issues could be followed by consultation, at the applicant’s discretion, when the proposals and supporting information have developed sufficiently for meaningful feedback.

4.14 It is routine and often beneficial for proposed DCO applications to be amended in light of responses to engagement and/or consultation or other circumstances. Applicants may wish to consider undertaking bespoke, targeted engagement and consultation with those most affected by significant amendments to proposals, but this is entirely at their own discretion and there is no statutory requirement to do so.

5. Key considerations in preparing an application

5.1 The key considerations an applicant needs to cover in preparing an application during the pre-application stage are identified in this section but are covered in more detail where appropriate in Part 2: Application contents.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 

5.2 Major infrastructure projects will normally be of a size, scale and nature that they will constitute EIA development under Regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations 2017. In such cases an applicant must submit an ES along with their application

5.3 Although it is not mandatory, an applicant can request at an early stage in the process that the Planning Inspectorate (acting on behalf of the Secretary of State) provides an opinion on the scope of the ES (the ‘scoping opinion’). The scoping opinion sets out what the EIA does, and does not, need to consider and the scope, and level of detail of the information to be provided in the ES to reflect Regulation 10(1) of the EIA Regulations, in order that the Planning Inspectorate can make a fully informed view and respond within 42 days.

5.4 Prior to adopting a scoping opinion, the Planning Inspectorate must consult with the prescribed bodies (as detailed in the APFP Regulations) who have a 28-day period to provide a response. The Planning Inspectorate takes into account responses received within this period in its preparation of the scoping opinion.

5.5 If the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) is of the view that transboundary effects could arise from the proposal it must follow the process in Regulation 32 of the EIA Regulations. Applicants should include information about the potential for transboundary effects in their scoping request to inform this. Where this request demonstrates that the proposal would not lead to likely significant effects from a particular aspect or matter, the scoping opinion will confirm its view that, at this stage, the matter is not within the scope of the ES. The opinion will also provide comment on the proposed approach to the scale of surveys, methods and assessment for aspects which were scoped in.

5.6 For the purpose of Regulation 11(1) and 11(3) of EIA Regulations, in order for the applicant to have  specialist input in preparing the ES, column 1 of Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations lists ‘persons to be notified’. Column 3 of the same Schedule sets out the circumstances in which they must be notified as well as who must respond to requests, where relevant to the proposed DCO application, to make information available.

5.7 Due to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025’s (“the PIA 2025”) amendments to the EIA Regulations, there is no longer a requirement for the applicant to publish Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) prior to the finalisation of the ES. However, the applicant must still submit the ES as part of the application. Engagement and/or consultation on the basis of a succinct description of the impacts may be appropriate, and iterative sharing of relevant information with public authorities is encouraged.

5.8 The provision of a voluntary evidence plan agreed between the applicant and a statutory body, outlining what environmental evidence is needed to support a proposed DCO application may assist in the identification and addressing of potential issues at an early stage in the preparation of an ES.

5.9 Part 6 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 contains provisions (which have not yet been enacted) which would replace the current Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and EIA requirements with a new regime of Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs). Until the EOR regulations are in place to commence this new regime, expected by the end of 2027, the existing arrangements for environmental assessment governed by the EIA Regulations remain in place and should be followed accordingly.

Habitats Regulations Assessment 

5.10 The Habitats Regulations provide for the designation of sites for the protection of certain species and habitats (Special Areas of Conservation) and protection of rare and vulnerable birds (Special Protection Areas), termed “European sites”   in legislation. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1972 (the Ramsar Convention) provides for the listing of wetlands of international importance, called “Ramsar sites”. Collectively, these sites form part of the United Kingdom’s National Site Network.  In practice, for the purpose of the Habitat Regulations  and assessment in the DCO application process, the Secretary of State is the competent authority. Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 provides that the competent authority may only agree to a plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site (or Ramsar site), unless derogations under Regulation 64 are applicable. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is a mandatory process that first tests if a proposed plan or project could have a likely significant effect on the designated features of a protected European site or Ramsar site.

5.11 If a plan or project, alone or in-combination with other plans or projects, could affect a European site or Ramsar site, the applicant must provide the competent authority with such information as may reasonably be required for the purposes of a  HRA. This information normally takes the form of a No Significant Effects Report (NSER) (if the applicant considers that likely significant effects can be excluded) or a ‘Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment’ (RIAA) in line with the Habitats Regulations. These reports  must include the site(s) that may be affected, together with such information as reasonably required to enable the competent authority, to conclude whether an appropriate assessment is required under the Habitats Regulations, and, if so, to undertake such an assessment. If, on the basis of the appropriate assessment, the competent authority cannot rule out an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected site, it cannot authorise the project or adopt the plan, except where there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project  must be carried out for “imperative reasons of overriding public interest”. Further relevant information can be found in Part 2:  Guidance on preparing Applications and in the Planning Inspectorate’s advice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance on HRA.

5.12 As the NPSs reiterate, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide all the material and evidence as part of a DCO application to enable the Secretary of State to carry out their statutory obligations.

5.13 It is recommended that applicants build in sufficient time during the pre-application stage to engage and/or consult with the statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs) and, if they consider it appropriate, with any relevant non-statutory nature conservation bodies, in order to gather necessary information for HRA purposes. The Planning Inspectorate can comment on the applicant’s HRA report as part of the pre-application service in advance of formal submission of the application. Further guidance is provided in Part 2: Application contents and Acceptance.

5.14 Regulation 26 of the EIA Regulations requires that where an EIA and HRA are required, the processes should be co-ordinated, where appropriate. The HRA process should form part of, and reference, the work carried out for the broader EIA process, particularly with respect to consideration of alternatives, cumulative effects and mitigation and compensation options. However, care should be taken to ensure that the information relevant to the HRA  and the conclusions reached under the Habitats Regulations, are clearly distinguishable from the EIA and capable of being considered separately.

Marine Conservation Zone Assessment 

5.15 The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides for the designation of offshore Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) and places a requirement on the relevant Secretary of State to consider whether the development is capable of significantly affecting an MCZ. As for HRA, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide all the material and evidence as part of the application to enable the Secretary of State to carry out their statutory obligations. This includes sufficient information to enable the Secretary of State to assess whether there is or may be a significant risk of the development hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives for the MCZ. If a significant risk cannot be ruled out, the applicant should provide information to demonstrate that relevant statutory conditions are met.

5.16 Applicants should provide this information and assessment alongside the HRA and ES in the form of a MCZ Assessment. As is the case for HRA, applicants are recommended to build in sufficient time during the pre-application stage to consult with the SNCBs and, if they consider it appropriate, with any relevant non-statutory nature conservation bodies.

Outline biodiversity gain plan

5.17 From 2 November 2026, applicants must submit an outline biodiversity gain plan with their DCO application, as required by the relevant biodiversity gain statement. During pre-application, applicants are encouraged to share the indicative BNG requirement for the project (calculated using the statutory biodiversity metric) and their proposed approach to deliver the required gains with the Planning Inspectorate and other relevant stakeholders, to help inform the development of the outline biodiversity gain plan.

Good design

5.18 Good design is not simply about the appearance of a project; it is about the whole process of developing a project, including choice of location, vision, narrative, and design principles. Good design plays a crucial role in achieving sustainability, functionality, positive place-making and resilience for NSIPs. Where appropriate, it is recommended that applicants seek input from a range of professionals and other interested parties during the pre-application stage to help inform and achieve the optimum design outcome. Applicants may benefit from adhering to an agreed design approach, such as that advocated by the Royal Institute of British Architects. It is recommended that applicants also have regard to design related policy tests in any relevant NPS.

Consideration of alternatives        

5.19 Each DCO application is examined on its merits, not whether it is the best of a range of possible projects. Whilst there is no general statutory requirement to consider alternatives in preparing a proposed development, applicants are encouraged to, and already routinely do, set out in a proposed DCO application, in brief terms, the main alternatives to their preferred proposal which were considered during the pre-application stage. However, applicants should be clear where consideration of reasonable alternatives is required for legal or evidential purposes and ensure any discussion of alternatives is proportionate and relevant to those requirements. There are specific circumstances where applicants are required to demonstrate the consideration of alternatives, including:

• to meet the requirements of the EIA Regulations or the Water Framework Regulations;
• where derogations are sought under the Habitats Regulations and   Marine Conservation Zone Assessments (section 126(7)(a) of Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009)
• where a NPS contains a specific policy requirement for an applicant to consider alternatives
• where compulsory acquisition of land is proposed

5.20 It is expected that the presentation of any alternative appraisals should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposed development and the relevance of this to demonstrating alignment with the relevant NPS, and relevant government spatial plans.

Obtaining information about land interests

5.21 Applicants will need to gather information about who has an interest in the land that could be affected by a proposed development before they submit their application. Section 52 of the Planning Act sets out detailed provisions which enable applicants to obtain information about interests in land, including provisions relating to the authority to serve notices, deadlines for compliance and offences for failure to do so.

5.22 The Planning Inspectorate has produced detailed advice which can be referred to and has procedures in place to handle authorisation requests  from applicants under section 52 of the Planning Act. Whilst the Planning Act does not specify statutory timeframes for determining requests from applicants for authorisation, and the complexity of circumstances varies, the expectation is that the Planning Inspectorate should be able to process a straightforward request in no more than 3 months.

Access to land for surveys

5.23 A person authorised in writing may enter land to carry out surveys and take levels, as set out in section 53(1) of the Planning Act. They may also enter land in order to   facilitate compliance with the provisions mentioned in section 53(1A) of the Planning Act (provisions in the EIA Regulations and the Habitats Regulations).  This may occur during the pre-application stage, once an application has been accepted for examination, or after development consent has been granted where the DCO includes provision for compulsory acquisition.

5.24 Section 53 of the Planning Act allows an authorised person to enter the land for the above mentioned purposes at any reasonable time. Before entering the land, at least 14 days’ notice of the intended entry must be given to every owner or occupier of the land. This is similar to entry provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which govern access to land for housing development whereby the Secretary of State is not required to authorise access.

5.25 The Infrastructure Planning (Rights of Entry Notice) Regulations 2026 prescribe the information that must be included in the rights of entry notice. This includes details of the project, timings of proposed entries, a statement that it is an offence to wilfully obstruct an authorised person from entering the land, and a statement of the rights of owners or occupiers. Further detail on the rights of entry notice is provided in Appendix A.

5.26 Where compulsory acquisition of land, or rights over land, is proposed, negotiations with owners or occupiers should be undertaken in the usual way. Further information on negotiation in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land is set out in relevant guidance and guidance in Part 2: Application contents explains the information required where the compulsory acquisition of land, or rights over it or interests in it, is sought. The use of the rights of entry power under section 53 of the Planning Act is separate from these negotiations.

5.27 The provisions in section 53 of the Planning Act are intended to help minimise delays where agreement cannot be reached with owners or occupiers of land affected by development. Voluntary negotiations with owners and occupiers are encouraged wherever possible. Applicants are also encouraged to identify and keep track of situations where these powers may be needed, particularly where those negotiations are not progressing. This can help avoid delays throughout the NSIP process.

5.28 Applicants should note that, where survey activities constitute operations likely to damage notified Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) features, requirements set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 relating to Natural England assent or, as the case may be, consent, may be engaged.

Non-planning consents and licences

5.29 Section 150 of the Planning Act provides that a DCO may include provisions that disapply the need for a prescribed consent or authorisation, subject to the agreement of the relevant body which would otherwise grant the prescribed consent or authorisation. Where an applicant intends to seek such disapplication of a consent or authorisation, government expects the relevant body to work constructively to facilitate the consideration of whether the disapplication should occur. Whether or not they are disapplied, such non-planning consents and permits are considered early in the pre-application stage.

5.30 For marine licences, section 149A of the Planning Act provides that a DCO may include one or more marine licences deemed to have been issued under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Such marine licences are issued by the MMO (in England), and where an applicant seeks to deem such a licence as part of the DCO, applicants are advised to engage and/or consult the MMO at the earliest opportunity to agree the scope and content of the deemed marine licence(s) and the range of conditions which may be required. Where separate, standalone marine licences may be sought in relation to a proposed DCO application, applicants are encouraged to discuss this the MMO at the earliest opportunity and communicate this to the Secretary of State via the application documentation.

5.31 For all non-planning consents and licences, applicants are encouraged to begin pre-application discussions with the relevant regulator early, having first considered what is likely to be required as a starting point for discussion. Some consents require a significant amount of preparation in advance of submission of the proposed DCO application, and applicants may benefit from discretionary services offered by regulators to streamline processes as far as possible.

6. Roles during the pre-application stage

The role of statutory and other interested bodies during the pre-application stage 

6.1 Statutory bodies, along with other local or national bodies or groups which may have relevant interest, evidence or knowledge, can play a valuable role during this stage by providing specialist input within their remit to help applicants prepare well-developed applications. This can include helping to identify key constraints relating to the proposed development, advising on potential evidence needs and other regulatory dependencies (including where other consents, permits or licences may be required) and supporting applicants to address or narrow issues before submission where possible.

6.2 Applicants are encouraged to use the list of prescribed persons for the purposes of section 56(2) of the Planning Act, set out in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations  as a checklist of who they may want to engage and/or consult with during the pre-application stage. This can be further refined to take into account any bespoke and/or location specific aspects of the proposed development.

6.3 Statutory and other bodies should:

• be clear about their remit and information provision capabilities
• provide timely and outcomes-focused advice
• co-ordinate with other bodies where responsibilities may overlap, to reduce duplication where possible
• be transparent about any capacity constraints that may affect engagement and/ or consultation during the pre-application stage, and work constructively with applicants to explore ways to optimise the timing and focus of their input
• where cost recovery applies, be transparent about chargeable services and expected outputs

The role of relevant local authorities during the pre-application stage        

6.4 Local authorities   are prescribed bodies under section 46 of the Planning Act. Local authorities, particularly host authorities, can provide considerable support to applicants in developing proposals, ensuring local issues are understood and taken into account. This includes helping applicants to understand the local planning policy context, local constraints, community issues and how to identify harder-to-reach groups (including input from Parish and Town Councils, where relevant) and provide technical input on matters such as highways, flooding and drainage. Local authorities may also provide suggestions for requirements, and the drafting of requirements, to be included in the draft DCO.

6.5 This pre-application engagement is without prejudice to views local authorities may express later in the DCO application process, including in relevant and written representations, in their Local Impact Report (LIR) or draft LIR or during the examination. Applicants are strongly encouraged to pursue technical discussions with local authorities, and local authorities are expected to engage constructively in these, even where a local authority has concerns in principle about the proposed development, to help identify, narrow and, where possible, resolve issues before application submission. Applicants are encouraged to consult local authority officers about how best to seek the input of Elected Members and keep them informed and updated on the development of a DCO application during pre-application. Further guidance on preparing relevant and written representations and LIRs (including draft LIRs) is set out in the pre-examination and examination guidance.

6.6 Where a proposed development affects more than one local authority area, consideration should be given to joint-working arrangements, such as a lead authority approach for co-ordinating input, sharing evidence and aligning engagement, particularly for cross-boundary projects, to support the effective use of resources and to avoid duplication. Different impacts and issues will need to be considered by applicants for offshore projects (that are outside the seaward boundary of a local authority’s area). In relation to cumulative effects, local authorities may wish to use the work linked to the Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) to identify, at an early stage, any concerns about proposed DCO application programmes and any potential interactions or programme changes across relevant CEA projects, so that the applicant is aware.

6.7 While some local authorities have experience of participating in the NSIP planning process, many will not, and for this reason the Planning Advisory Service facilitates a local authority support network. Local authorities can learn from how others have approached planning, resourcing, and engaging with the process. This might include seeking practical advice about how the NSIP process and DCO applications differ to applications under other planning regimes (such as the Town and Country Planning Act), and the implications of this for their approach to the process. The Planning Advisory Service has developed examples of good practice, and the Planning Inspectorate can put local authorities in touch with others who have experience in particular aspects of the NSIP process.

6.8 Local authorities who can charge applicants for pre-application services for the purposes of section 54A of the Planning Act are prescribed in Schedule 2 of the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010. Those prescribed local authorities can also recover costs for work they do throughout the DCO process if they have a Planning Performance Agreement or other equivalent agreement in place with the applicant (see guidance on cost recovery by the Planning Inspectorate and public authorities). Local authorities should ensure they put sufficient internal resources and decision-making arrangements in place to enable them to discharge their responsibilities to applicants for their charged pre-application services.

6.9 Separately from providing support to applicants during the pre-application stage, local authorities have a specific statutory role in the examination of applications. Once an application has been accepted for examination, under section 60 of the Planning Act, the host local authority in which the proposed DCO application is located (and relevant neighbouring authorities) will be invited by the Examining Authority to submit an LIR. The LIR should provide an objective, evidence-based assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on the local authority’s area and community, identifying key local impacts and any matters that may require further examination. The LIR performs a distinct function, it is not a means for the local authority to set out its views on whether development consent should be granted, those views should instead be provided through relevant representations and, where appropriate, written representations.

6.10 The previous practice was that the deadline for submission of the LIR, perhaps in draft form, usually occurred at an early stage in the examination process. Pre-examination guidance now sets out that government wishes to encourage the submission of the LIR perhaps in draft form at a much earlier stage, alongside the relevant representations shortly after acceptance of the application for examination. This means that local authorities should begin preparation of their LIR at the end of the pre-application period and continue to develop and refine it in the light of the application documents.

The role of landowners and persons with an interest in land during the pre-application stage 

6.11 Applicants often seek powers in a DCO to compulsorily acquire land, interests in land or take temporary possession of land, in order to implement a proposed development. In such cases, during the pre-application stage, applicants are strongly encouraged to engage with those who own, occupy or have another interest in the land in question. Applicants are advised to act with sensitivity, recognising and respecting the significant impacts such proposed developments can have on individuals and communities.

6.12 To facilitate compulsory acquisition powers being granted by the Secretary of State in a DCO, applicants must be able to demonstrate that:

i. there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired and the compulsory acquisition power should be granted in the DCO (e.g. the benefits outweigh the private or public interest and/or rights in the land) and

ii. they have taken reasonable measures to engage with and seek to agree acquisition of the land through voluntary agreement, in line with the principles set out in guidance on compulsory acquisition.

6.13 Early engagement can help to identify practical constraints related to the land, uncover preferable alternative options, enable key issues to be addressed while project design may be more flexible, and reduce the risk of issues being raised for the first time later in the process. Even where land is not compulsorily acquired, applicants should be conscious of individuals who may later have rights to make a relevant claim for compensation (e.g. for example as a result of construction or operational effects) if the DCO is granted and fully implemented. This includes Category 3 persons set out in section 57 of the Planning Act.

6.14 When engaging with landowners, occupiers or those with an interest in the land, applicants should share accessible, easily digestible information about the potential scope and impact of the proposed development and an indication, where possible, of the rights which the applicant will be seeking over land as part of the DCO application. Applicants should keep a clear record of who has been identified and engaged with, what was discussed, and how issues have been considered as projects evolve as part of a Land and Rights Negotiation Tracker (refer to Part 2: Application contents and the Planning Inspectorate’s Pre-application Prospectus).

The role of local communities during the pre-application stage  

6.15 Applicants are recommended to consider how they can engage the communities that may be affected by a proposed development, recognising that they may reflect different perspectives. Applicants are encouraged to help those communities understand the key issues in the pre-application stage, to inform preparation of their application, including by providing clear, accessible and relevant information about the proposed development and potential effects. Independent community liaison chairs or forums may be used to provide support to local communities and non-statutory bodies to enable them to provide effective input to the pre-application process.

6.16 It is important that applicants are clear about what communities can and cannot influence at different points in the pre-application stage. There is no requirement to submit a consultation report as part of the application, but applicants may wish to maintain a record of how community input has informed the project design and any proposed mitigations in case this is useful for examination.

7.  Programme management

7.1 There is no prescribed period of time for the pre-application stage. The amount of work involved in preparation of an application will vary, driven by the applicant and the complexity of the proposed development, the time necessary to address issues raised during engagement and/or consultation, as well as other factors such as preparation of the ES. Effective programme management by the applicant will support the alignment of input from statutory and other bodies to support efficient progression of the application. The Planning Inspectorate provides pre-application services to applicants, which are explained in its Pre-application Prospectus, ranging from basic (focusing on statutory minimum procedural advice in connection with the proposed application) to enhanced (supporting applicants of very complex projects).

7.2 Overall, government expects the time spent at pre-application to reduce across projects,  reflecting the benefits of process efficiencies, the impact of streamlining reforms made by the PIA 2025, and growing experience across sectors.

Programme information

7.3 The scope, nature, timing and extent of work carried out during the pre-application stage is at the applicant’s discretion. However, in order to ensure that all participants in the process are clear about the expectations of them, particularly the intended timetable for the pre-application period, applicants are encouraged to prepare an outline document containing key programme information. It is recommended that this covers the main milestones and what and when input from key statutory bodies will be required such as:

• the target date the applicant intends to submit their application
• the main events with dates and milestones demonstrating how the pre-application process will be carried out
• the applicant’s view on the main issues it considers the proposed development may give rise to and activities they will undertake to address those and how it proposes to track risks
• the applicant’s proposals for engaging with statutory bodies/undertakers, local authorities and communities during the pre-application period

7.4 Applicants are encouraged to meet the Planning Inspectorate at the start of the pre-application period (see paragraph 7.5) and to share their proposed programme for discussion at the meeting. Applicants are then encouraged to publish and circulate programme information to relevant organisations and bodies, as appropriate, so they are informed of the proposed development and their role in preparing the application at the earliest opportunity. It will be helpful if applicants keep the Planning Inspectorate informed during their pre-application process, such as how the main milestones set out in the programme are being met.

The inception meeting with the Planning Inspectorate 

7.5 It is recommended that the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate hold an inception meeting at the beginning of the pre-application stage. The purpose of this is for the applicant to discuss with the Planning Inspectorate the proposed development, their intended programme for the pre-application stage, what work and surveys are intended to be prepared to support the proposed DCO application, and the scope of services required to support the proposed programme of pre-application activities. This can also include discussion of any anticipated requests for screening or scoping of EIA development, including the topics applicants intend to scope in or out, to inform resource planning at the Planning Inspectorate.

Pre-application services from the Planning Inspectorate      

7.6 It is recommended that applicants discuss with the Planning Inspectorate at the inception meeting which support package would be most appropriate for them. It is recommended that the Planning Inspectorate assess, as early as possible, what is likely to be expected of them, and that they offer the applicant the most appropriate level of service. This service will run for a fixed period of time in order to help the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate manage their resources efficiently. Further information on the fees for Planning Inspectorate’s pre-application services is set out in guidance on Cost Recovery by the Planning Inspectorate and Public Bodies. The pre-application services are being re-designed in light of the PIA 2025 reforms, with new services expected to be launched in summer 2027.

Section 51 advice

7.7 Section 51 of the Planning Act and Regulation 11 of the APFP Regulations provide for the giving of advice to potential applicants and others about applying for a DCO and making representations about a DCO application, or proposed application (“Section 51 advice”). Regulation 11 of the APFP Regulations states that a record of any advice given in accordance with section 51 must be maintained on a publicly accessible website. This record must state who requested the advice, the subject matter of the request, the relevant application to which the request relates and the date the advice was given. In practice, such advice is given by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, and an advice log is maintained on the appropriate project pages of the Planning Inspectorate’s “Find a National Infrastructure Project” website.

7.8 Section 51 advice is intended to help applicants submit applications that are of a satisfactory standard to be accepted for examination. Therefore, such advice needs to be specific to the DCO application (or proposed DCO application) and its context, focusing on matters that are material to the acceptance and examination stages. Section 51 advice represents the professional view of the Planning Inspectorate based on the information available to them at the time – this may include evidence provided by other parties in relation to the application.

7.9 Whilst an Inspector involved in giving Section 51 advice will be in a position to offer an Inspector’s perspective on the significance of issues arising during pre-application for the examination, this does not represent the view of any Examining Authority, which will be informed by considerations through the examination. The Planning Inspectorate will not be able to give a view on the likelihood of development consent being granted or refused, as this is a matter for the Examining Authority alone to make a recommendation on and the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision on.

7.10 Where appropriate, the Planning Inspectorate may use section 51 advice to identify deficiencies or gaps in information to enable issues to be addressed early, and support targeted improvements to an application as part of its pre-application services. Where appropriate, in the course of giving section 51 advice, the Planning Inspectorate may also advise applicants to engage with certain statutory and other relevant bodies where there are identified issues with an application that may benefit from early technical input. In these circumstances, statutory bodies are encouraged to engage with the applicant to enable the progression of the NSIP process.

7.11 In addition to project specific advice given under section 51, the Planning Inspectorate publishes advice pages that are intended to inform applicants, public authorities, the public and others about a range of operational matters in the preparation, structure, content, and presentation of applications made under the Planning Act. The Planning Inspectorate’s advice is non-statutory, which means there is no legal obligation to follow it. However, the advice is drawn from good practice and applicants and others are encouraged to consider it carefully and follow its recommendations where appropriate. The advice is intended to complement the primary legislation, secondary legislation and guidance issued by government.

8. Outcome of the pre-application stage

8.1 The pre-application stage is measured from the date of the inception meeting (where this is held) between the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate to the receipt of the application for acceptance by the Planning Inspectorate. At the end of the pre-application stage, the application should be ready for submission. Part 2: Application contents and Part 3: Content of a Draft DCO of this guidance set out in detail what an application should include, and the content of a DCO.

8.2 By the end of the pre-application stage, applicants and relevant stakeholders will have a clear view of the main issues which they consider the proposed DCO application gives rise to, unresolved matters, and consequently the topics likely to be the subject of representations if the application is accepted for examination. It will be of great help to the Examining Authority in preparing its IAPI upon receipt of the relevant representations during the pre-examination stage to have the applicant’s early views about what it considers the key issues are likely to be. This can inform the Examining Authority’s considerations, and in turn may help to ensure the examination is structured to focus on the key issues, while still allowing all relevant matters to be considered.

8.3 Accordingly, applicants are encouraged to provide concise information as part of the submission, listing the key issues arising from the preparation of the application at the conclusion of the pre-application stage. Applicants and parties have several tools available to them to identify and understand areas of agreement and remaining principal areas of disagreement which can reasonably form part of this, including Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) or Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS). Examination guidance explains the role of SoCGs and PADSS during the examination stage.

8.4 For the avoidance of doubt, the provision of information about the applicant’s assessment of the key issues (and the fact that this may indicate that a number of unresolved matters remain), is not a matter for consideration as to whether the application should be accepted for examination, but nonetheless represents best practice.

8.5 Recognising there is no statutory requirement to produce a consultation report, some applicants may choose to prepare a short engagement summary to submit with their DCO application or to publish on their website, if they consider this adds value. This might focus on who was engaged, how feedback from public bodies, local authorities, communities, and landowners/occupiers was considered, which feedback led to changes and which feedback was not taken onboard and why.

Appendix A: Rights of Entry Notice      

Evidence of reasonable steps to contact every owner or occupier of the relevant land

The rights of entry notice must include a statement from the authorised person with evidence showing that they have taken reasonable steps to contact every owner or occupier of the relevant land. It is recommended that the authorised person makes a minimum of three contact attempts using different methods, where reasonably practicable, for example:

• one attempt sent to the last known postal address
• one attempt by email where an email address and been provided or previously used for land matters
• one further attempt by another reasonable channel (i.e. telephone, SMS, contact via a known managing agent, the erection of a site notice, or site visit to the land)

It is recommended that this statement includes:

• the steps taken to contact every owner or occupier of the land;
• the dates and methods of those steps
• evidence of the attempts of contact (e.g., proof of delivery, call logs, SMS messages, and email correspondence)
• any responses received

Additional requirements in relation to proposed applications

Where the entry is in connection with a proposed application, proposed applicants  are required to provide a statement with evidence showing they intend to apply for an order granting development consent. It is recommended that this statement includes:

• details of the proposed development and the land to which the proposed application is expected to relate
• confirmation that the proposed applicant intends in good faith to apply for an order granting development consent

Expectations on engagement and co-operation

The strong expectation is that proposed applicants and applicants of DCO projects and those granted development consent (with a compulsory acquisition provision) will act reasonably in engaging with owners or occupiers of the land. Owners or occupiers of the land are likewise expected to cooperate by providing relevant information and facilitating access where required. This expectation applies even where an owner or occupier objects to the principle of the development. Such cooperation does not preclude, remove or reduce any of the rights of an owner or occupier of the land to participate in any consultation or engagement on a DCO application or make representations about it during the examination.