Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

offering to return this to the landowner. We are currently seeking an agreement
with EDF but if we have to resort to CPO powers, you will appreciate that we
cannot guarantee that EDF will accept a transfer of the land. GWFL are due to
meet with EDF to discuss this and the landscape mitigation proposals this week.
The enclosed plans reflect the preferable fenceline where such an agreement is
reached, with the CPO powers being sought over the full extent of the
earthworks. We will discuss such a proposal shortly with EDF as freehold
landowner, even if this is on the presumption of a CPO scenario, and will keep
you informed of their views on this and the other proposed landscape mitigation
measures.
Draft DCO
It is our intention to submit detailed plans with the application for the landform to
be implemented as approved. However the potential to vary the final landform
within defined limits of tolerance of -100mm and +300mm are proposed to be
permitted on the vertical accuracy of the approved landform within the draft DCO.
This is primarily to allow reasonable construction tolerances to be achieved, but
also allows some variation to create rounded transitions between different heights
and slopes without breaching the approved landform plan or footprint. We trust
that the proposed tolerances are reasonable and would propose that they are not
of material significance to the assessments and adequacy of screening.
A further provision will also be included in the draft DCO that landscape planting
will not commence until a planting plan has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, SCDC. The landscape and planting plan will be in accordance with
the Landscape Mitigation Strategy that will be included with the DCO application,
unless otherwise subsequently agreed with SCDC.
In our meeting we discussed that GWF were considering providing absolute
constraints in the draft DCO, that would create parameters within which any
subsequent agreement to vary would sit. Having taken further advice on this
matter, we propose that the draft DCO continues to adopt its current approach of
stipulating that any subsequent variations will respect the original environmental
assessments. As local planning authorities are well versed in approving plans in
accordance with environmental assessments, we believe that the IPC will be
comfortable with this approach. We trust that SCDC, in consultation with SCC,
would be comfortable with such controls and responsibility over subsequent
approvals on behalf of the IPC.
AONB fund
In our meetings of 6 May, 5 July and 25 August 2011 you explained that you
considered that GWFL should make a contribution to an ‘AONB fund’ as a means
of mitigating residual landscape impacts on the AONB as a result of above
ground onshore development. Discussions with the freehold landowner at the
substation (EDF) are ongoing, however the existing AONB fund for the Sizewell B
Dry Store has been identified as a potential vehicle for such a contribution. At our
most recent meeting we agreed that SCC/SCDC would be comfortable with GWF
contributing to the AONB fund via any commercial land agreement with EDF,
provided any contribution was the subject of a clear contractual commitment and
was sufficiently transparent to show that contributions would be in addition to
those agreed between SCC, SCDC and EDF for other projects.