22.02.2013 Views

Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

From: Bob.Chamberlain@SuffolkCoastal.gov.uk<br />

To: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com<br />

Cc: peter.holborn@et.suffolkcc.gov.uk<br />

Subject: RE: <strong>Galloper</strong> <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Farm</strong> - onshore landscape changes<br />

Date: 08 September 2011 11:39:20<br />

Colin,<br />

My informal comments are summarised below:<br />

1. Draft Minutes: I am satisfied that these are an accurate record of our meeting. I can confirm that<br />

my query relating to the necessity of one of the DCO provisions related to Clause 13.<br />

2. Proposed Landform: I am happy to see the significant improvements in the landform, especially to<br />

the north towards Sandy Lane in the Broom Covert area. I understand Peter has some concerns<br />

about the feathering in to the South but overall this is a more appropriate response to the need for a<br />

less engineered solution. This landform should be seen as the minimum land take/earth sculpturing<br />

needed to ameliorate what is inevitably an adverse impact on the AONB landscape.<br />

3. Planting/Landscape Mitigation: I would be guided in this by Peter who is giving technical landscape<br />

advice to both SCC/SCDC.<br />

4. Sizewell Vision: I note your approach and it is one that I can support. The potential to return land to<br />

EDF to integrate into the overall Landscape Vision for its estate is I consider the right approach.<br />

5. Draft DCO: I can confirm that I see no problem with allowing the tolerances set out in your letter<br />

nor do I see a problem with the procedures fro post DCO approval of details provided they sit within<br />

the worst case scenario/parameters tested in the EIA.<br />

6. AONB Fund: I agree we need to include the contributions to an AONB Fund in a draft 106 given<br />

we do not currently have any other method for securing such a mitigating funds. What I am less clear<br />

about is the period of contribution - why 5 years? When we dealt with the Sizewell B Dry Store<br />

building we secured a £100k<br />

initial payment to be followed by £20k per annum for the lifetime of the building. Whilst no two sites<br />

are ever exactly the same nevertheless I need to understand your reasoning to be able to take<br />

forward meaningful negotiations in tandem with my colleagues at SCC.<br />

I hope these comments are helpful at this stage in advance of your further discussions with EDF and<br />

preparation of your DCO and associated documentation.<br />

Regards,<br />

Bob Chamberlain<br />

Principal Planner (Major <strong>Project</strong>s)<br />

01394-444429.<br />

From: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com [mailto:Colin.McAllister@rwe.com]<br />

Sent: 05 September 2011 12:23<br />

To: Bob Chamberlain<br />

Subject: <strong>Galloper</strong> <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Farm</strong> - onshore landscape changes<br />

Bob, please find attached:<br />

- a letter regarding further changes GWF have made to the landscaping proposals and onshore<br />

aspects of the application as a result of our meeting on 25 August<br />

- a plan showing the amended landform<br />

- a plan of the amended landscape mitigation<br />

- a cross section of the amended landscape mitigation<br />

- draft minutes of our meeting on 25 August

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!