Planning and approval process: planning approval initiated
50Hertz applied for planning approval in January 2012. In March 2012, the procedure was then initiated by the planning authority. During the planning approval procedure, the proposals and positions of the representatives of public interests (incl. municipalities, authorities and associations) and citizens alike are assessed. To this end, the project developer submits a specific plan for public consultation. The documents for the approval of the Förderstedt project were available in the city of Staßfurt and the municipality of Bördeland from 2 May to 1 June 2012 (deadline for objections: 15/06/2012).
Current planning steps: route variant 3 was modified in the spatial planning procedure
In the scope of the preliminary investigation, 50Hertz already developed four routing variants for the new overhead line in 2009, in accordance with 50Hertz's own routing principles, such as bypassing residential areas, limiting the effects on nature and landscape, bundling the route with other infrastructure routes, integrating the line in the landscape through appropriate alignment and avoiding routes through ecologically valuable areas as much as possible.
In December 2009, the route planning started to take shape. After an in-depth examination of the four options and taking into account the remarks of the public interest representatives - ranging from the municipalities involved to the local environmental protection associations and wind farm operators - variant 3, with an originally planned length of some 10 km, was modified and favoured.
Afterwards, in May 2010, the application for a spatial planning procedure (ROV) for the project was submitted to the competent planning authority. The regional planning assessment of April 2011 ended the spatial planning procedure with the conclusion that the project is consistent with the spatial planning and environmental requirements, provided that the necessary measures are taken.
Additionally, 50Hertz asked the competent planning authority in April 2011 to verify whether the project required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In May 2011, the authority replied that the assessment was not necessary.