Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

gradual slope to be introduced when viewed from Sizewell Gap. This has
resulted in the average gradient of the slope slackening to the discussed 1 in 10.
This has resulted in the landform extending further into Broom Covert which
GWFL had previously minimised; this is in response to your comments in relation
to the relative importance of the AONB and the Broom Covert acid grassland
habitat. We have, however, sought to minimise the loss of acid grassland in this
area by moving the woodland component of the planting further up the slope of
the landform. This will allow the restoration of acid grassland on the lower slope
of the landform without compromising the landscape mitigation benefits of the
woodland planting (see attached drawing 2890/07F)
Other landscape mitigation measures
At the meeting it was indicated by SCC that the proposed hedgerow
enhancements running north from Sizewell Gap to the proposed substation and
at the boundary between Broom Covert and the southerly arable field would not
be appropriate given the landscape character of the area. In light of this
comment, GWFL have removed the proposed hedgerow enhancements from the
enclosed plans and this will be reflected in the submitted Landscape Mitigation
Statement (LMS).
SCC also commented at the meeting that the proposed woodland species mix
should have a higher proportion of Scots Pine and that new hedgerows should
be 90% Hawthorn with 10% Blackthorn. These amended species mixes will be
included in the LMS which accompanies the DCO application.
Sizewell Vision
In our meeting we discussed the ability for GWF to contribute as a ‘Phase’ to the
Sizewell Vision that SCC and SCDC are developing for the AONB, and to which
EDF, in relation to their nearby nuclear assets and future proposals, have already
made progress. We also discussed that the Vision was focussed on a heathland
habitat transitioning into woodland cores. The proposals with this letter reflect
these discussions, whereby GWF’s landform and LMS contribute both a
woodland core and a transitional zone to future heathland, whilst allowing future
phases, if or when they occur, to continue the Vision beyond the boundary of the
GWF works.
As you aware we strongly anticipate that our application to the Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) will seek Compulsory Purchase (CPO) powers which
will have to demonstrate justifiable and proportionate quantity of, and interests or
rights over and in, land. We consider that in light of our meeting it is
proportionate to seek interests or rights over land over the extent of landform
shown. However in our meeting we discussed the potential for the ultimate field
boundary to be located on our landform, if this could be achieved through
temporary land rights, which would return the lower landform to the existing
freehold owner. This would have the benefit of allowing EDF the potential to
implement the ongoing transitional zone on the landform, in line with any wider
Vision that may be brought forward in the future.
Having taken legal advice we are advised that, in the event of CPO, this return of
freehold over our landform could be achieved by securing the freehold and then