A general principle which I guess also applies to CIL is that you should only submit something you believe to be sound. You would also have some explaining to do to demonstrate why the Council is simultaneously holding two different positions.
If DCS 2 is being prepared with the intention of being taken forward to adoption, you presumably consider DCS 1 to be deficient - so why waste everyones time considering it?
If the position is that DCS 2 is a failed experiment and the Council now wishes to revert to DCS 1, then to my mind before DCS 1 is submitted, the Council will need to explain why it initially thought that DCS 1 was unsatisfactory and the factors that have caused it to change its mind. It would be a good idea to submit any such reasoning to consultation before it goes before an inspector.
If DCS 2 is intended to pre-empt the main modification process, there are some merits in publishing and consulting ahead of the examination. There is a risk in doing this before the Inspector has expressed a view - you may well have to make, and consult on, further changes following the hearing in any event.
