North East File Collection - NEFC

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 251204pre-action_protocol_letter_-_grs_to_mmo
251204pre-action_protocol_letter_-_grs_to_mmo

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
251204pre-action_protocol_letter_-_grs_to_mmo [2026/04/30 06:17] – nefcadmin251204pre-action_protocol_letter_-_grs_to_mmo [2026/04/30 06:21] (current) – old revision restored (2026/04/29 09:58) nefcadmin
Line 1: Line 1:
 +Goodenough Ring Solicitors , Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Ave, London, EC4Y 0HA
 +
 +www.grsolicitors.co.uk
 +
 Marine Management Organisation, Tyneside House, Skinnerburn Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR Marine Management Organisation, Tyneside House, Skinnerburn Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR
  
-legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk, www.gov.uk/mmo, +44 (0) 2077142806+Our ref: GIB00001
  
-BY EMAIL ONLY+Your ref: MLA/2025/00263
  
-Alice Goodenough, Goodenough Ring Solicitors, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London, ECY4 0HA+4 December 2025
  
-Your reference: GIB00001, Our reference: MLA/2025/00263+**__FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION__** 
 + 
 +**__JUDICIAL REVIEW PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER__**
  
-24 December 2025 
  
 Dear Sir or Madam, Dear Sir or Madam,
  
-===== MLA/2025/00263 – Response to PAP letter =====+**Proposed claim for judicial review of the decision to grant** **a marine licence to PD Teesport Limited to undertake the disposal of dredged material to Tees Bay A (TY160) (Ref. MLA/2025/00263)**
  
-   * 1. We are in receipt of your pre-action protocol letter of 4 December 2025 (“**PAPL 1”**) as well  as  your  further  pre-action  letter  of  15  December  2025  (**“PAPL  2**”,  together the “**PAPLs**”). We have now had an opportunity to carefully consider your proposed claim.  +This is a pre-action letter under the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol in support of an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the Marine Management Organisation’s (“**MMO**”) decision to grant a licence (L/2025/00366/1), under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, to PD Teesport Ltd to undertake disposal of dredged material to Tees Bay A (TY160) (Ref. MLA/2025/00263).
-   * 2. Unless otherwise stated all defined terms used in this letter are as defined in the PAPLs. +
-   * 3. The proposed claim is directed to the grant of a new 10-year licence for the continued disposal of maintenance dredging arisings (“**the Activity**”) from the Harbour to the Tees Bay A disposal site (“**the Disposal Site**”). As your client will be well aware, this is an activity which has been going on for many years. Maintenance dredging arisings from the Harbour have been disposed of at the Disposal Site in comparable volumes for at least 15 years, and the Disposal Site has been used for disposal of maintenance and capital dredging since 1 June 2011. The new licence (ref L/2025/00366/1) (**“the New Licence**”) permits disposal of the same material at the annual quantities as the current licence (ref L/2015/00427/7) (“**the Previous Licence**”). +
-   * 4. With one exception <sup>1</sup>, the PAPLs fail to identify any new information or evidence which the  Marine  Management  Organisation  (“MMO”)  has  not  previously  considered  in  the exercise of its functions in relation to the activity. Those functions include not only the determination  of  the Interested  Party’s  application (ref MLA/2025/00263) for  the  New Licence, but also: +
-      * (1) Determination  of  “mid-licence”  approvals  under  relevant  licence  conditions:  see condition 5.2.3 of the Previous Licence and condition 5.2.4 of the New Licence. The most recent of these was granted on 31 January 2025; and +
-      * (2) The MMO’s ongoing power to vary, suspend or revoke a licence under s.72(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Act (“**the 2009 Act**”). +
-   * 5. This is important because each of your proposed grounds proceed on the premise that there is evidence of some environmental impact or risk which the MMO could and should have considered against the relevant statutory or policy tests and which might have led to some other outcome. The MMO does not consider that there is any such evidence and will  rely  upon  s.31(2A)  of  the  Senior  Courts  Act  1981  in addition to its  case  that there have been no legal errors as alleged. However, your client should be aware that it remains open to the MMO to consider any new evidence or scientific arguments which your client may put forward and to act on them if it considers that it is appropriate to do so in the light of the legal and policy provisions which you raise. +
-   * 6. It  follows,  and  consistent  with  your  client’s  desire  to  avoid  interfering  with  necessary dredging activities, there is at this time no merit in a court being asked to consider the proposed  claim<sup>2</sup>.  If  your  client  believes  that  there  are  evidence  or  arguments  which would justify the MMO seeking to vary or revoke the New Licence then he should submit the same to the MMO for its review. +
-   * 7. In  accordance  with  the  Pre-Action  Protocol  for  Judicial  Review,  we  can  confirm  the following details: +
-      * (1) The  proposed  claimant  is  Dr  Simon  Gibbon (“**the Claimant**”). +
-      * (2) The  proposed  defendant  is  the  Marine  Management  Organisation  (“**the ** **Defendant**”, “**the MMO**”) +
-      * (3) The  Defendant’s  legal  representative  and  address  for  service  is: Legal Team  – Marine  Management  Organisation,  Tyneside  House,  Skinnerburn  Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR. We accept service at the following email address <legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk;> and +
-      * (4) The interested party is PD Teesport Limited (“**the Interested Party**”). +
-    +
-===== Details of the matter being challenged =====+
  
-   * 8. The decision of the Defendant dated 5 November 2025 to grant a licence under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (“**the 2009 Act**”) to the Interested Party to undertake the disposal of dredged material to Tees Bay A (TY160) (“**the Decision**”). +===== The Claimant =====
-    +
-===== Legal and policy framework =====+
  
-   * 9. The legal and policy framework at paragraphs 7 to 20 of PAPL 1 is acknowledged.  +1 The proposed claimant is Dr Simon Gibbon (“**the Claimant**”).
-   * 10. In addition to the powers you set out the MMO is also empowered under s.72(3) of the 2009 Act to vary, suspend or revoke any licence if it appears to the authority that the licence  ought  to  be  varied,  suspended  or  revoked  “//(a)  because  of  a  change  in circumstances relating to the environment or human health; (b) because of increased scientific knowledge relating to either of those matters; (c) in the interests of safety of navigation; (d) for any other reason that appears to the authority to be relevant//.” +
-   * 11. The MMO also draws your attention to the summaries of the origins and effect of the statutory framework governing the MMO’s exercise of its marine licensing functions as set out by the High Court in //**Powell v Marine Management Organisation **//[2017] LLR 808 at [42]-[67] and //**R  (Tarian  Hafren  Severn  Shield  CYF)  v Marine  Management Organisation **//[20022] PTSR see [46]-[65]. The following features should be noted: +
-      * (1)  The legislation is designed to be flexible proportionate and risk-based, regulating only those activities posing a significant risk to inter alia the environment (//**Tarian Hafren **//at [46]); +
-      * (2)  The  MMO  is  obliged  to  exercise  its  functions  in  accordance  with  the  general objective imposed by section 2 of the 2009 Act which is that: “//the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled—  // +
-         * //(a) with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development (see subsections (2) and (4) to (11)),  // +
-         * //(b) taking account of all relevant facts and matters (see subsection (3)), and  // +
-         * //(c) in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated (see subsection (12))//”; +
-      * (3)   Per subsection (3), taking into account all relevant facts and matters under s.2(1)(b) may include taking into account: +
-         * “//(a)  scientific  evidence,  whether  available  to,  or  reasonably  obtainable  by,  the MMO;  // +
-         * //(b)  other  evidence  so  available or  obtainable relating to the  social,  economic or environmental elements of sustainable development;  // +
-         * //(c) such facts or matters not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) as the MMO may consider appropriate.//” +
-      * (4)  Section 2(3)(c) indicates the broad and flexible nature of the judgement which the MMO may exercise in pursuit of its statutory objectives (see //**Tarian Hafren **//at [48]). +
-      * (5)  Similarly, section 69(1)(c), which you quote at paragraph 10 of PAPL1, gives the MMO  a  broad  and  flexible  discretion  to  take  into  account  such  matters  as  it considers relevant (see //**Tarian Hafren **//at [56]).+
  
-===== Response to the Claim ===== +===== The Defendant =====
-   * 12.  The claim is unarguable and will be defended in full. +
-    +
-==== Ground 1: Irrational application of sampling guidance==== +
-   * 13.  The MMO was well aware of the need to ensure adequate sampling and requested an approved  a  sampling  plan  on  the  basis  of  detailed  technical  advice  from  Cefas,  the government’s technical advisers on marine science.  +
-   * 14.  Cefas’  advice  was  that  31  samples  was  appropriate.    This  was  first  conveyed  in the context of the Interested Party’s application for their final mid-licence review under the Previous Licence and was given by letter on 26 July 2024. The sampling requested was then  reviewed  by  Cefas  and  advice  given  on  16  January  2025  and  5  March  2025, leading to a conclusion that the material was suitable for disposal at sea.  +
-   * 15.  Cefas’  advice  on  the  application  for  the  New  Licence,  given  on  24  July  2025, substantially relied on its previous assessment and concluded that there was nothing to prevent the disposal of the material to sea, see paragraph 27 and summary as follows: +
-      * “//**Summary**// +
-      * //34. The analysis of the data provided for previous licence to discharged licence condition 5.2.3. for year nine sampling are suitable to support the application for this renewal for a ten-year licence for the continued use of Tees Bay A (TY160) for the  disposal  of  maintenance  dredge  material  from  Tees  and  Hartlepool.  The material remains acceptable for disposal to sea. // +
-      * //35. The applicant should provide the MMO with accurately completed templates for this data to ensure that annual returns data for Tees Bay A (TY160) are accurate and  for  use  with  Cefas  Sediment  Framework  Management  Application  for publication of the data4. // +
-      * //36. Previous Cefas advice (cited points 8 and 9) suggested Tees Bay A (TY160) was included in future monitoring to look at impacts on sediment quality, flora and fauna at the site and surrounding area as a result of the continued disposal activity. This  is  in  line  with  conclusions  from  the  assessment  of  survey  data  from  2023 (Bolam  et.al  2024).  Should  the  results  of  any  future  monitoring  indicate  any negative adverse effects then this advice could be subject to change before the next  round  of  monitoring.  Therefore,  results  of  monitoring  should  be  reviewed alongside the licence conditions for this application if consented.//” +
-   * 16.  As can be seen from each of the advice letters, Cefas are well aware of the content of the OSPAR Guidelines which does not set out a fixed or preferred methodology for the assessment of the number of sampling stations required based on area, but provides two complementary methods and advice as to the nature of the technical judgement to be  reached.  Cefas’  assessment  of  the  number  of  samples  required  reflects  the availability of long term data as well as the relatively low risk nature of the activity as a maintenance  dredge  largely  dealing  with  tidal  sand  deposits  as  opposed  to  a  capital dredge.  The  MMO  will  say  that  requiring  the  operator  to  provide  over  800  samples (which is what the strict application of the area based formula would lead to) would be a misapplication of the precautionary principle and contrary to evidence-based decision making.  +
-   * 17.  Your approach to the OSPAR Guidelines (i) applies an unduly legalistic approach to a technical guidance document which is intended to assist the contracting parties rather than set down fixed procedures and (ii) omits to refer to the various indications that the passages  relied  upon  are  not  intended  to  require  a  decision-maker  to  use  the  area- based method. In particular, you do not refer to paragraph 1.3 which makes it clear that assessments are to be devised at national level or the new<sup>3</sup> language before the inserted spatial table which says that the number of sample stations can “//also”// be determined on the basis of the size of the area to be dredged.  +
-   * 18.  It is trite that the court will afford an enhanced margin of appreciation to a decision based on matters of technical, evaluative judgment (see e g //**R (Mott) v Environment Agency**// [2016]  1  WLR  4338)  and  will  proceed  on  the  basis  that  the  MMO  and  Cefas  have understood  and  applied  the  relevant  policy  guidance  unless  the  contrary  is demonstrated: see //**R (Keir) v Natural England**//** **[2022] Env LR 3 at paras 46 and 48.  There is no such evidence here.+
  
-==== Ground 2: Failure to consider impact on water quality in the marine strategy area ====+2 The proposed defendant is the MMO (“**the Defendant**”).
  
-    * 19.  Under this ground you allege that the MMO failed to have regard to the impact of the regulated activity on marine waters beyond the water bodies regulated under the 2017 Regulations. This is said to lead to a breach of policy and/or the 2010 Regulations. +===== Interested Party =====
  
-3 Inserted in the 2024 update.+3 The interested party is the PD Teesport Limited (“**the Interested Party**”), the statutory harbour authority for the Port of Tees and Hartlepool which includes a 12-mile stretch of the River Tees, the Port of Hartlepool and part of the North Sea (‘**the Harbour**’).
  
 +4 Pursuant to section 16 of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 and paragraph 7 of the Teesport Harbour Revision Order 2008, the Interested Party has the power to dredge the bed and foreshore of the waters of the Harbour or in or near any approach to the Harbour. In formulating or considering any proposals for such dredging, the Interested Party is required under section 48A of the Harbours Act 1964 to have regard to (among other things) the conservation of flora and fauna.
 +5 The Interested Party does not have statutory authority to dispose of any dredged material at sea. To do that, the Interested Party requires a marine licence from the MMO.
  
 +===== The decision under challenge =====
  
-----+6 The decision under challenge is the decision of the Defendant of 5 November 2025 to grant a licence under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to the Interested Party to undertake the disposal of dredged material to Tees Bay A (TY160) (“**the Decision**”).
  
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-7_1.png}}+===== The legal and policy framework =====
  
 +//The Defendant’s duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009//
  
-20.  MMO gave detailed consideration to the question as to whether the dredged material is +7 Section 2 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (‘**the 2009 Act**’) provides that it is the duty of the MMO to secure that its functions are so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled— (a) with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development, (b) taking account of all relevant facts and matters, and (c) in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated. 
-suitable  for  disposal  at  sea,  concluding  that  it  is  and  that  the  proposals  were  in + 
-accordance  with  the  North  East  Marine  Plan  (see  second  paragraph  of  the  MMO’s +8 Section 58 of the 2009 Act provides that a public authority must take any authorisation or enforcement decision in accordance with the appropriate marine policy documents, unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. As set out below, the relevant marine policy documents in this case are the North East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plan Documents. 
-Decision  Letter  dated  5  November  2025).  In  the  course  of  our  consideration  MMO + 
-sought and obtained detailed advice from Cefas on the chemical characteristics of the +9 Section 65(1) of the 2009 Act prohibits anyone from carrying on or causing or permitting any other person to carry on, a “licensable marine activity” “except in accordance with a marine licence granted by the appropriate licensing authority”. Section 66 defines what are licensable marine activities and includes: “1. To deposit any substance or object within the UK marine licensing area, either in the sea or on or under the seabed, from — (a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or marine structure…” 
-material and also consulted Natural England and the Environment Agency.   + 
-21.  The  MMO  also  concluded,  having  identified  potential  affected  species  and  habitats +10 Section 67 provides for the making of an application for a marine licence to the MMO. Section 69 deals with the determination of applications. Subsection (1) provides: - “(1) In determining an application for a marine licence (including the terms on which it is to be granted and what conditions, if any, are to be attached to it), the appropriate licensing authority must have regard to— (a) the need to protect the environment, (b) the need to protect human health, (c) the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea, and such other matters as the authority thinks relevant” 
-within the wider marine environment that the proposal was “//unlikely to adversely affect // + 
-//other habitats/species//[[2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT.html#7|”4.]] +11 The Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance on the manner in which the MMO is to seek to secure, pursuant to section 2(1)(a) of the 2009 Act, the contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. Among other things, that statutory guidance requires the MMO to: 
-22.  None  of  these  assessments  were  based  on  the  “//false  comparison//”  you  allege  at +    - Act in accordance with the Marine Policy Statement (‘**MPS**’); and 
-paragraph 43(b) of PAPL 1; the MMO were assessing the consequences of permitting +    - Have regard to the need for evidence-based decision making driven by sound science. 
-the relevant activity against the correct baseline of the marine environment as it currently + 
-exists with other lawful activities occurring, including the use of the Tees Bay A for the +12 Paragraph 3.6 of the MPS addressees marine dredging and disposal. It provides as follows: 
-disposal of other dredging arisings. + 
-23.  These technical conclusions led the MMO to a conclusion that the  proposals were in +//“3.6.6 When sediments are contaminated, dredging has the potential to cause significant environmental and health effects through exposure to contaminants in the dredging plume. These contaminants arise from diverse sources such as the legacy of industrial pollution, for example metals and poly chlorinated biphenyls, or historical and current use of antifoulants including tributyltin and heavy metals and new contaminants which are now finding their way into the marine environment, such as flame retardants including poly brominated diphenyl ethers.// 
-accordance  with  relevant  policies,  including  NE-WQ-1.  This  conclusion  cannot + 
-realistically be impugned:  +//3.6.7 In considering an application, decision makers should __undertake a detailed evaluation of the potential adverse effects of any dredging activity or deposit on the marine ecosystem and others using the sea__. This should have full regard to any accompanying environmental statement or additional data that may be requested in support of the application and __international obligations under the OSPAR Convention 1992 and London Protocol 1996, as well as any other available guidance__. Account should also be taken of the views expressed by other consultees before a decision is taken whether to grant approval.// 
-(1)  Policy NE-WQ-1 does no more that make clear that in policy as well as legal terms + 
-“//there  should  be  no  adverse  impacts  on  water  quality  in  line  with  //[the  2010 +//3.6.8 Applications to dispose of wastes must __demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to the internationally agreed hierarchy of waste management options for sea disposal__. Wastes should not be accepted for disposal where appropriate opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste without undue risks to either human health or the environment, or disproportionate costs. The decision maker should give appropriate consideration to alternative uses of the sediment.// 
-Regulations]”.  + 
-(2)  The 2010 Regulations implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (“**the ** +//3.6.9 Decision makers should consider the potential adverse effects on the marine environment, habitats and wildlife from dredging activity. Particular recognition should be given to the implementation and use of the maintenance dredge protocol to minimize impacts on habitats and wildlife and help meet statutory obligations in relation to European Sites. There also needs to be compliance with requirements of the WFD __and other EU Directives__.”// (emphasis added) 
-**MSF  Directive**”).  Regulation  4  of  the  2010  Regulations  require  the  MMO  to + 
-exercise its functions so as to secure compliance with the MRF Directive, including +13 For the purposes of the statutory duty at section 58 of the 2009 Act, the relevant marine policy documents are the North East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plan Documents. The Plan includes the following policies, among others: 
-Article  1  which  obliges  Member  States  to  take  necessary  measures  to  achieve + 
-GES by 2020. Under both the 2010 Regulations and the MSF Directive this is to +    - Policy NE-DD-3, which requires proposals for the disposal of dredged material to demonstrate that they have been assessed against the waste hierarchy (i.e. to demonstrate that disposal of dredged material at sea is a last resort). 
-be achieved through the development of marine strategies under regulation 5, to +    - Policy NE-WQ-1, which requires proposals that cause deterioration of water quality to demonstrate that they will, in order of preference: i) avoid, ii) minimise, and iii) mitigate deterioration of water quality in the marine environment. 
-which all public authorities must have regard in the exercise of relevant functions + 
-(see regulation 9).+===== Other statutory duties of the MMO ===== 
 + 
 +14 Regulation 22 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (‘**the 2011 Regulations**’) requires the MMO, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, to discharge his functions under Part 4 of the 2009 Act for the purpose of ensuring that the waste hierarchy in article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive is applied to the generation of waste. Those functions include the power to determine an application and issue a marine licence under sections 69 and 71 of the 2009 Act. 
 + 
 +15 Regulation 3(1) of the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (‘**the 2017 Regulations**’) requires the Secretary of State to exercise his “relevant functions” so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. By regulation 2(1) “relevant functions” includes those functions under Part 4 of the 2009 Act, including the power to determine an application and issue a marine licence under sections 69 and 71. 
 + 
 +16 Regulation 4 of the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (‘**the 2010 Regulations**’) requires the Secretary of State to exercise his “relevant functions” so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including the requirement in Article 1 to take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status of marine waters within the marine strategy area. By regulation 4(2) and Schedule 2, “relevant function” includes those functions under Part 4 of the 2009 Act, including the power to determine an application and issue a marine licence under sections 69 and 71. 
 + 
 +17 Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘**the Habitats Regulations**’) requires the MMO, as competent authority, before deciding to give any consent for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site to make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project and only to grant such consent if adverse effects on the integrity of the site can be ruled out on a precautionary basis (or if the criteria for a derogation is met). 
 + 
 +===== MMO and OSPAR guidance on dredge sampling ===== 
 + 
 +18 The MMO has issued guidance for the sampling required by those seeking marine licences for dredging and disposal activity in its document entitled “Marine licensing: Sediment Analysis”. It states: 
 + 
 +> //“The UK is signed up to the London Protocol and OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, both of which address preventing marine pollution from disposal at sea.// 
 + 
 +> //__MMO licenses disposing of dredged materials at sea and uses guidelines produced by OSPAR to regulate this activity.__ A marine licence to dispose of dredged materials to sea requires the sediments to be characterised to allow the potential adverse environmental effects of disposing of the material to be considered.// 
 + 
 +> //__The OSPAR guidelines recommend a tiered approach to assess the sediments__, if sufficient information is not already available from existing sources. The assessments required will depend upon the specific details of the proposed activities, although characterisation of a standard set of physical and chemical determinands within the sediments is often necessary.”// 
 + 
 +19 The OSPAR guidelines the MMO purports to apply are The OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material at Sea (Agreement 2014-06) (‘**the OSPAR Guidelines**’), which were adopted at the 2014 Meeting of OSPAR’s Environmental Impacts of Human Activities Committee and updated in 2024. They state: //“Contracting Parties should take these guidelines into consideration in their authorisation or regulation procedures for dredged material.”// (para.2.1) 
 + 
 +20 Section 5 of the Guidelines concerns ‘dredged material sampling’. 
 + 
 +> //5. Dredged material sampling// 
 + 
 +>//5.1 Dredged material will require sampling and analysis (cf. Technical Annex I) to provide sufficient information for permitting purposes. Local conditions will dictate what information is relevant to a particular operation.// 
 + 
 +> //5.2 The location and depth of sampling should represent the horizontal and vertical extent of the area, and the quantity of material to be dredged. In many maintenance dredging campaigns, grab sampling will be sufficient. Sampling from dredged material within disposal vessels or barges is not advisable for permitting purposes.// 
 + 
 +> //5.3 Samples should provide a good spatial (surface) and vertical (depth) representation of the material to be dredged and should take account of the exchange characteristics of the area, i.e., more samples may be required in a low energy enclosed and semi-enclosed areas, and less in high energy environments such as open areas. The minimum number of separate sampling stations recommended to obtain representative results, assuming a reasonably uniform sediment distribution in the area to be dredged is as follows. The number of sample stations can also be determined on the basis of the size of the area to be dredged:// 
 + 
 +|**Dredged Area (m2)**  |**Number of Stations (locations)**  | 
 +|<10 000                |1-3                                 | 
 +|10 000 - 50 000        |4 – 8                               | 
 +|50 000 //-// 100 000   |9 – 10                              | 
 +|>100 000               |extra 5 per 100 000m2               | 
 + 
 +> //Where projected depth of dredging is significant, samples will be required at depth, usually by vibracore. The volume of the dredge material should be taken into consideration to determine the number of samples, as below.// 
 + 
 +|//**Amount dredged (m<sup>3</sup>)**//  |//**Number of Stations**//              | 
 +|//Up to 25,000//                        |//3//                                   | 
 +|//25,000 - 100,000//                    |//4 – 6//                               | 
 +|//100,000 - 500,000//                   |//7 – 15//                              | 
 +|//500,000 - 2,000,000//                 |//16 – 30//                             | 
 +|//>2,000,000//                          |//extra 10 per million m<sup>3</sup>//  | 
 + 
 +> //Contracting Parties are encouraged to use the Guidelines for the Sampling and Analysis of Dredged Material Intended for Disposal at Sea (IMO, 2005) to inform sampling regimes.// 
 + 
 +> //5.4 Normally, the samples from each sampling station and different depths in the sediment should be analysed separately. However, if previous analyses have shown that the sediment is clearly homogenous with respect to sediment texture and known contamination it is possible to analyse composite samples. OSPAR recommends no more than three adjacent sampling stations at a time be composited, and providing there are no distinctly different observable attributes (same colour, consistency, odour) in different sub samples. Care should be taken to ensure that the results allow derivation of valid mean contaminant values.”// 
 + 
 +===== The facts ===== 
 + 
 +21 The Tees Bay A site is located approximately 3 nautical miles offshore from the mouth of the Tees River. It lies within one nautical mile of the seaward boundary of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site, which overlaps with the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Both the SPA and the SSSI are in unfavourable condition, with significant parts of the SSSI in a condition of continual decline. 
 + 
 +22 The benthic environment within the Harbour is known to be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (‘**PAHs’**) and organohalogens (‘**OHs’**) including polychlorinated biphenyls (‘**PCBs**’) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (‘**PDBEs**’) (together ‘**the Pollutants**’). These Pollutants can cause harm to biodiversity and there is a reasonable suspicion that they have contributed to the death of at least 21 of a total 23 harbour seal-pups born in or around the River Tees in the summer of 2025.((See https://www.sealresearch.org/research/tess-seal-pup-crowdfunding-project)) 
 + 
 +23 The level of Pollutants across the benthic environment of the Harbour varies considerably, including between locations in very close proximity. The levels of Pollutants in some areas of the Harbour exceed the level at which material dredged from those locations could safely be disposed at sea. For that reason, the Interested Party’s existing maintenance dredge disposal licence excludes from scope any material dredged from the following areas: Cochrane's/Tees wharf; Normanby Wharf Graving Dock; Tees Offshore Base; Teesport Commerce Wharf (TPC) Dry Dock; Wharf Britannia; and Enterprise Zone. 
 + 
 +24 The Interested Party’s current maintenance dredge disposal licence L/2015/00427/7 is due to expire on 31 December 2025. Through application MLA/2025/00263, the Interested Party applied for a further licence commencing on 1 January 2026 and ending on 31 December 2035 authorising the disposal of material dredged from the Harbour at the Tees Bay A site. In support of that application, the Interested Party submitted (among other things): i) Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (‘**the Baseline Report**’) and ii) Tess Maintenance Dredging Water Environment Regulations (WER) Compliance Assessment (‘**the WER Report**’). 
 + 
 +25 The Baseline Report included (among other things): 
 +    - An acknowledgement that certain sites within the Harbour were excluded from the existing licence for disposal on account of contamination: section 3.2. 
 +    - A summary of the results of sedimentary analysis of 36 samples from the benthic environment of the Habour, taken in 2019, which indicated that there were concentrations of metals, the majority of PAH compounds, C-napthalenes, Phenanthrene, and PCBs in excess of Cefas Action Level 1, and high concentrations of total hydrocarbons and PDBEs. 
 +    - A summary of the results of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic environment of the Habour, taken in 2024, which indicated levels of metals in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 and levels of PBDEs, BDE 209, 99 and 100 higher than recommended by Cefas experts. 
 +    - An acknowledgment that alternative use considerations are a legal requirement of the marine licensing process, and a note that “where suitable, a proportion of dredged arisings for alternative (beneficial) use within the estuary have been identified”. 
 +    - Plume modelling that illustrated the predicted dispersal of dredged material once disposed at Tees Bay A: see section 6.1.4. 
 +    - An analysis of the impact of disposal on the achievement of good ecological status for water bodies regulated under the 2017 Regulations. 
 +    - An assessment of the likely impact of the proposed activity on the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site. The assessment ruled out adverse impacts of the disposal of dredged material because “//sediment plumes dilute quickly, within close proximity to disposal site boundary”// and //“there is therefore no pathway for effect”.// 
 + 
 +26 The approach of the Baseline Report was to assume that maintenance dredging and the disposal of dredged material formed part of the baseline against which effects should be assessed. The apparent result was that the assessment did not compare the proposed activity against a “do nothing” activity, as is the standard approach to environmental impact assessment. Instead, it compared the impacts of the proposed activity against the impacts of the existing activity and assumed, without any substantial analysis, that the existing activity was acceptable by virtue of long-term occurrence and without regard to evidence of environmental harm, including evidence relating to the high mortality of seal pups. 
 + 
 +27 Statutory consultees made representations on the application. Natural England advised that the application was likely to have significant effects on Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar sites and recommended that, if an appropriate assessment was carried out, it should include sediment sampling and analysis, with prohibition of disposal at sea of dredge arisings which are unsuitable for that purpose. 
 + 
 +28 The Proposed Claimant made representations as the lead author for NEMRG objecting to the application on the ground (among others) that it was not being assessed on a precautionary basis and, in particular, on the basis that the sediment quality analyses was insufficient and treated the samples as being homogeneous and coming from a river with predictable sediment quality. 
 + 
 +===== Proposed grounds of challenge ===== 
 + 
 +==== Ground 1: irrational application of sampling guidance ==== 
 + 
 +29 The Defendant accepts that the benthic environment of the Harbour is variably contaminated and shows little to no homogeneity. The Defendant also accepts that parts of the Harbour contain levels of Pollutants that are not safe for disposal at sea. The evidence shows that the SPA/Ramsar site and SSSI are both in unfavourable condition and the addition of pollutants is unlikely to support their recovery. There is also evidence that harbour seals are already adversely affected by the Pollutants. 
 + 
 +30 That means that careful representative sampling of the dredged area is critical to minimise the possibility of harmful contamination of the marine waters of the marine strategy area, the water bodies regulated by the 2017 Regulations, and the areas protected by the Habitats Regulations. 
 + 
 +31 The Defendant purports to apply the OSPAR Guidelines to ensure adequate sampling. In its letter to the Interested Party of 30 July 2024, the Defendant advised the Interested Party to take 31 samples from within the footprint of the proposed dredge area. It considered that //“whilst this could be considered slightly under the guidelines set by OSPAR, which recommends 30 sites for dredges up to 2,000,000 m3 with an additional ten sites per million m3, the MMO is content that these provide adequate spatial coverage across the dredge locations as each Chart Sector contains one or more sampling points, with additional points in non-sectored maintained areas.”// 
 + 
 +32 In fact, the requirement for 31 samples to be taken was not //“slightly under the guidelines set by OSPAR”//; it was dramatically short of what the OSPAR Guidelines required and was based on a misunderstanding of those Guidelines. 
 + 
 +33 Paragraph 5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines requires samples to “//provide a good spatial (surface) and vertical (depth) representation of the material to be dredged”.// It then provides that //“the minimum number of sampling stations”// is first to be determined by reference to the __area__ to be dredged and provides the following table (‘**the spatial table**’): 
 + 
 +|**Dredged Area (m2)**  |**Number of Stations (locations)**  | 
 +|<10 000                |1-3                                 | 
 +|10 000 - 50 000        |4 – 8                               | 
 +|50 000 //-// 100 000   |9 – 10                              | 
 +|>100 000               |extra 5 per 100 000m2               | 
 + 
 +34 The entire area of the Harbour which the Interested Party has statutory authority to dredge is 16,685,800m2. The licence permits the disposal of material dredged from that entire area with minimal exclusions. Applying the table to the entire area of the Harbour, the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is 839. Even if the OSPAR Guidelines are applied only to the c.20% of the Harbour that has historically been dredged (c. 3,337,160m), the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is 172. The Claimant does not accept that the lower figure would be appropriate, given that the licence permits disposal of any material dredged from the entire Harbour, but either way, the OSPAR Guidelines required somewhere between five and 27 times as many samples as was required by the Defendant. 
 + 
 +35 Paragraph 5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines then states: “//Where projected depth of dredging is significant, samples will be required at depth, usually by vibracore. The volume of the dredge material should be taken into consideration to determine the number of samples, as below”.// The Guidelines then show the following table (‘**the volumetric table**’) 
 + 
 +|//**Amount dredged (m<sup>3</sup>)**//  |//**Number of Stations**//              | 
 +|//Up to 25,000//                        |//3//                                   | 
 +|//25,000 - 100,000//                    |//4 – 6//                               | 
 +|//100,000 - 500,000//                   |//7 – 15//                              | 
 +|//500,000 - 2,000,000//                 |//16 – 30//                             | 
 +|//>2,000,000//                          |//extra 10 per million m<sup>3</sup>//  | 
 + 
 +36 As such, the volumetric table is not to be used as __an alternative to__ the spatial table but to ensure that, where there is significant depth of dredging, the spatial table does not under-assess the number of samples required. 
 + 
 +37 As a result, the Defendant was mistaken to think that the requested 31 samples was “slightly under” what was required by the OSPAR Guidelines because it wrongly applied the volumetric table without regard to the spatial table at all. In requiring the Interested Party to provide only 31 samples, and in accepting those samples as broadly consistent with the Defendant’s own policy to apply the OSPAR Guidelines, the Defendant misapplied its own guidance. 
 + 
 +38 That had the effect of depriving the Defendant of sufficient evidence driven by sound science on which to assess the impacts of the proposal on the marine environment, and rendered the Decision unlawful. 
 + 
 +==== Ground 2: Failure to consider impact on water quality in the marine strategy area ====
  
-4 See answer to Gateway 3 response at Q10.+39 The Applicant’s assessment of the impact of proposed activity on water quality was exclusively focused on the impact on water quality in water bodies regulated under the 2017 Regulations: see section 6.2 of the Baseline Report. The Applicant failed to address at all the impact of the proposed activity on water quality in the marine waters of the marine strategy area.
  
 +40 There is no evidence that the Defendant considered the impact of the proposal on water quality in the marine strategy area; indeed, the Defendant’s assessment of the compliance of the proposal with North East Marine Plan Policy NE-WQ-1 is limited to impacts on the Tees Coastal waterbody, in relation to which the Defendant did //“not consider there to be any pathway for impacts from the disposal”.//
  
 +41 The UK Marine Strategy Part One (2019) indicates that, in relation to the “contaminant” descriptor (D8), good environmental status was not achieved in the North Sea primarily on account of highly persistent legacy chemicals such as PCBs in biota and marine sediments mainly in coastal waters and often close to polluted sources. It noted that PCBs had been detected in significant concentrations in orcas in UK seas.
  
-----+42 The Applicant’s failure to address the impact on water quality in the marine waters of the marine strategy area and to focus exclusively on impacts on water bodies regulated by the 2010 Regulations, together with the complete absence of any evidence that the Defendant rectified this error, leads to two errors of law:
  
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-8_1.png}}+  - First, the Defendant failed to have regard to its duty under regulation 4 of the 2010 Regulations and failed to comply with that duty by exercising, on behalf of the Secretary of State, its functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including the requirement in Article 1 to take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status of marine waters within the marine strategy area.
  
 +  - Second, the Defendant misdirected itself in relation to policy NE-WQ-1 of the North East Marine Plan because it wrongly considered that policy only to be relevant to the impact on water bodies regulated by the 2011 Regulations. Accordingly, the Defendant unlawfully failed to apply the requirements of policy NE-WQ-1 to the application, in particular by failing to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated that it would, in order of preference: i) avoid, ii) minimise, and iii) mitigate deterioration of water quality in the marine environment.
  
-(3)  Under the UK’s Marine Strategy, the UK’s waters are divided into sub-regions, the +43 Alternatively, if the Defendant contends that it concluded that the proposal would not cause deterioration of water quality in the marine waters of the marine strategy area (even though that conclusion is not recorded anywhere), that conclusion was unlawful because it: 
-relevant sub-region being the Greater North S[[2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT.html#8|ea5.]] The UK Marine Strategy Part +    - was based upon an inadequate sampling exercise (see ground 1); and/or 
-One (2019), Part Three (2025) and consultation draft of the most recent update to +    - was based on a false comparison of existing water quality (where disposal of contaminated dredged material is taking place under licence due to expire on 31 December 2025) with future water quality (where disposal of dredged material will take place under the proposed licence). Instead, consistent with standard practice for environmental assessment for activities that require a licence or consent, the comparison should have been between the ‘do nothing scenario’ (no disposal) and the ‘project scenario’ (disposal under licence). The Defendant unlawfully failed to carry out that assessment and therefore failed lawfully to: 
-Part One all identify that GES for Contaminants (D8) has not been attained in the +      - discharge its duty under section 69(1)(a) of the 2009 Act; 
-Greater North Sea. However, the mechanism to achieve GES is via the measures +      - comply with paragraph 3.6.7 of the MPS; and 
-set  out  (most  recently)  in  Part  Three  (2025).  These  do  not  indicate  that +      - apply policy NE-WQ-1.
-maintenance dredging and disposal should be curtailed nor present any basis on +
-which it could be said that disposal of dredged material should be at one location +
-within a region or sub-region rather than another.  +
-(4)  The MMO has given detailed consideration to the question of whether the dredged +
-material is appropriate for disposal to sea. It is not and cannot be suggested that +
-the material should be disposed of outside the Greater North Sea sub-region and +
-nothing has been presented to suggest that use of a different disposal site within +
-the sub-region would enable or facilitate the attainment of GES.  +
-**Ground 3: Failure to comply with the waste hierarchy ** +
-24.  The  MMO  gave  specific  consideration  to  the  waste  hierarchy  under  the  2011 +
-Regulations and recorded a conclusion of compliance at Q18 of Gateway 3. This was +
-based on consideration of paragraph 3.6 of the Interested Party’s Maintenance Dredging +
-Protocol  (“**MDP**”)  baseline  document  which  records  the  ways  in  which  the  Interested +
-Party (as a waste operator and harbour authority itself is required to apply the waste +
-hierarchy) has previously managed to find preferrable beneficial uses of the material. In +
-the context of a long-standing maintenance activity this was sufficient to demonstrate to +
-the MMO’s satisfaction that all alternatives to disposal had been and would continue to +
-be considered. The MMO’s conclusion cannot realistically be impugned.+
  
 +==== Ground 3: Failure to comply with the waste hierarchy ====
  
 +44 There is no evidence in the application to demonstrate that the Interested Party conducted any serious consideration of alternatives to disposal at sea. That is surprising because the Interested Party explicitly acknowledged the legal duty to do so at section 3.6 of the Baseline Report. The content of paragraph 3.6 does not arguably demonstrate that the disposal of waste at sea is a last resort. Indeed, it comes nowhere near the threshold of demonstrating that the Interested Party has explored all alternatives to disposal at sea and has reasonably rejected those alternatives. Consequently, the Defendant’s approval of the application was unlawful because it was:
 +    - a breach of its legal duty under regulation 22 of the 2011 Regulations;
 +    - inconsistent with the policy requirement of NE-DD-3; and
 +    - inconsistent with the requirement of MPS para 3.6.8.
  
 +==== Ground 4: failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment ====
  
 +45 Pursuant to regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations, consent for the proposed activity could only be granted if adverse effects on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site could be excluded, with no reasonable scientific doubt: see //__Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij__// (C-127/02) [2005] Env. L.R. 14 (“//__Waddenzee__//”) at [59]. This requires the application of the precautionary principle.
  
-5 https:%%//%%moat.Cefas.co.uk/introduction-to-uk-marine-strategy/+46 In this case, there is no evidence that the MMO, as competent authority, carried out any appropriate assessment at all.
  
 +47 Further, although the Interested Party acknowledged the proximity of the SPA, it failed to assess the possible impacts of PAHs, PCBs, PDBEs, and heavy metal contaminants on the integrity of the SPA, despite its knowledge that:
 +    - concentrations of these Pollutants in the dredged material to be disposed of at Tees Bay A is frequently in excess of recommended levels; and
 +    - the SPA is already under pressure from other cumulative pressures, including nutrient pollution, and from PAHs, PCBs, PDBEs, and heavy metal contaminants stirred up from the dredging process itself.
  
 +48 The reason no such assessment was carried out is because the Baseline Report i) concluded that there was //“no pathway for effect”// from Tees Bay A to the SPA; and ii) assessed impacts by comparing the proposed activity with the existing activity and concluding that because there was no proposed change there would be no adverse impact. Both reasons for failing to carry out a proper assessment were flawed.
  
-----+49 As for the conclusion that there was no pathway for effect from Tees Bay A to the SPA, the Interested Party’s own plume modelling shows that the plume of sediment from the disposal point at Tees A drifts into, or extremely close to, the SPA. Either way, the precautionary approach required by the Habitats Regulations required the assessment of the impact of the Pollutants on the integrity of the SPA on account of the following factors: 
 +    - the fact that the modelled plume entered or came very close to the SPA; 
 +    - the uncertainty inherent in such modelling, and the obvious risk that a change in currents or wind patterns could result in the plume reaching far inside the SPA; 
 +    - the knowledge that the dredged material disposed at Tees Bay A contained contaminants that are potentially harmful to the qualifying features of the SPA; 
 +    - the cumulative pressures already impacting the integrity of the SPA, including pollution caused by the dredging (rather than disposal) process itself.
  
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-9_1.png}}+50 As for the approach to assessing impacts, the precautionary approach required by the Habitats Directive requires an appropriate assessment to compare the impacts of a proposed activity that might have significant effects on protected habitats with the “do nothing” scenario and not to assume (as the Interested Party and Defendant did) that the continuation of long-term polluting activities will have no adverse effects on the integrity of protected sites. Indeed, Article 2(2) of the Habitats Directive specifically requires Member States to take action to __restore__ protected habitats to a favourable conservation status. By virtue of regulation 9(1) of the Habitats Regulations, the Defendant was required to exercise its functions so as to secure compliance with that requirement (among others). There is no evidence that the Defendant considered whether the cessation or modification of the historic disposal activity might support the restoration of the SPA to favourable conservation status. 
 +51 As a result, the decision to approve the application without an appropriate assessment, alternatively without an adequate appropriate assessment, was a breach of regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations.
  
 +===== The orders sought =====
  
-**Ground 4: Failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment ** +52 The following orders will be sought from the Court: 
-25.  As  PAPL  2  recognises,  the  MMO  carried  out  a  Habitats  Regulations  Assessment +    - a declaration of unlawfulness; 
-(“**HRA**”)  in  relation  to  the  New  Licence.  The  HRA  identifies  relevant  impacts  and +    - a suspended quashing order; 
-assesses  them  against  the  conservation  objectives  and  advice  provided  by  Natural +    - an order under CPR 46.26; and 
-England,  using  the  Advice on Operations  decision  aid.  The  author  applied  this  along +    - costs.
-with  site  specific  knowledge  to  conclude  that  the  project  will  give  rise  to  no  likely +
-significant effects on the Special Protection Area (“**SPA**”), alone and in-combination with +
-other projects. Site specific features included the evidence from the Interested Party that +
-material  disposed  at  the  Tees  Bay  A  site  is  carried  in  a  south-easterly  direction  with +
-“//peak depositions occurring outside of the SPA boundary//” but, as the HRA makes clear, +
-the MMO did not accept that there was no pathway. Instead, the MMO’s reasoned view +
-was  that  impacts  alone  and  in-combination  would  not  be  significant.  This  view  was +
-reached in the context that: +
-(1)  The  scale  of  the  potential  impact  from  the  proposals  in  the  light  of  the  plume +
-evidence, which led the MMO to conclude that there would “//not be an impact to // +
-//supporting  habitat  nor  a  significant  impact  on  water  quality  which  is  a  medium // +
-//pressure impact for Common, Sandwich and Little Tern only”. // +
-(2)  Relevant baseline pressures at the site would not be increased from the current +
-position.  +
-(3)  The  activity  was  longstanding  and  had  recently  been  assessed  as  a  project  in- +
-combination with others via other licence applications or licence variations. This +
-meant there  were  no  additional  in-combination  impacts to  consider that had not +
-already been subject to a HRA and approved; and +
-(4)  Natural  England  had  been  consulted  on  the  application,  and  again  on  the  draft +
-HRA, and had raised no objection. +
-26.  The principles cited at paragraph 18 above are also relevant here. There is no proper +
-basis on which to ask the court to impugn the MMO’s assessment as an expert regulator, +
-nor the supporting advice of Natural England.  +
  
 +53 The Claimant does not wish to interfere with necessary dredging activities and does not seek a quashing order that would have this effect. Instead, the Claimant will invite the Court to issue a quashing order, suspended for a period of nine months, to enable:
  
 +    - the Interested Party to:
 +        - carry out further sampling in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines;
 +        - lawfully apply the waste hierarchy and demonstrate genuine considerations of alternatives to disposal at sea;
 +        - prepare a lawful habitats regulations assessment; and
 +        - make a revised application.
 +    - The Defendant to: consider and lawfully determine the revised application, avoiding the errors of law identified above.
  
 +===== What the Defendant is asked to do =====
  
-----+54 The Defendant is asked to: 
 +    - Agree that the Decision was unlawful; 
 +    - Consent to judgment and agree to a suspended quashing order as set out above; and 
 +    - Pay our client’s costs. 
 +55 If the Defendant does not agree, please explain why not.
  
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-10_1.png}}+===== What the Interested Party is asked to do =====
  
 +56 The Interested Party is asked to consent to the suspended quashing order as set out above.
  
-**Ground 5: EIA ** +===== Alternative Dispute Resolution =====
-27.  PAPL  2  raises  an  additional  potential  ground  of  claim  which  is  a  failure  to  consider +
-whether  the  regulated  activity  falls  within  paragraph  76  of  Schedule  A2  to  the  2007 +
-Regulations. +
-28.  A similar ground was raised in a judicial revi[[2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT.html#10|ew6 ]]of a licence granted to Premier Marinas +
-(Brighton) Ltd in May 2025, which was consented to on other grounds. Following the +
-Brighton Marina claim, the MMO sought advice from Leading Counsel (in which privilege +
-is not waived).  +
-29.  The MMO’s position is that the question of whether material is sludge is a question of +
-fact.  In this case, maintenance dredging arisings are not sludge within the meaning of +
-the EIA Directive as it is sediment and thus comes from natural processes of erosion +
-and  water  movement  rather  than  being  the  product  of  any  industrial  or  biological +
-process. The regulated activity is therefore not in the course of a sludge deposition site. +
-30.  Further, even if the deposit of maintenance dredging arisings from the Harbour at the +
-Disposal Site were an activity within Schedule A2 of the 2007 Regulations, you have +
-provided no evidence that it might give rise to likely significant effects. As set out above, +
-the MMO has concluded on the basis of the available scientific information and advice +
-(including that of Cefas, Natural England and the Environment Agency) that the licensed +
-activities do not give rise to any adverse effects on habitats and species, including those +
-protected by the Habitats Regulations and that they do not result in deterioration of water +
-quality within any Water Framework Directive waterbody.  +
-31.  As such the MMO will say that it is therefore highly likely that the outcome on EIA would +
-have been substantially the same even if it had concluded that the material in question +
-is sludge.+
  
 +57 Our client would be open to ADR but is mindful of the need to meet time limits for filing the claim. Should the Defendant and Interested Party prove willing to engage in ADR, the Claimant proposes that the claim is filed with an application for a stay.
  
 +===== Further information requested =====
  
 +58 Pursuant to its duty of candour, the Defendant is asked to provide the following:
  
-6 AC-2025-LON-002797+  - A map setting out the locations and the full extent of those locations that are excluded from the licence (para.5.2.3 of the licence). 
 +  - All information held by the MMO which demonstrates contamination levels in the locations excluded for the disposal of dredged material (para.5.2.3 of the licence). 
 +  - Documentation evidencing the Defendant’s "Test of Likely Significant Effect" (TLSE) or HRA Screening Matrix or Appropriate Assessment of the application, as required by regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations. 
 +  - The internal submission or recommendation report provided to the decision-maker (the signatory of the licence) summarising the application and making a recommendation for approval or refusal. 
 +  - Cefas Scientific Advice: Full copies of all advice, correspondence, and technical reviews provided by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) regarding: 
 +    - Approaches to the development of sampling plans which underpin the decision to request 31 samples; 
 +    - The reasons why the sediment analysis results do not require the measurement of all determinands from all samples for licence and also mid-licence sampling (specifically regarding particle size, total organic carbon, PAHs, PCBs, and PDBEs); and 
 +    - Any validation of the plume dispersion modelling provided by the Interested Party carried out by Cefas. 
 +  - Any internal notes, meeting minutes, or correspondence recording the rationale for applying the OSPAR "volumetric" table without regard to the "spatial" table when determining sample numbers. 
 +  - Disclosure of the full documentation behind the sampling plans developed for both MLA/2025/00263 and MLA/2015/00088 which are not viewable on the MCMS Public Register, including SAM/2024/00054, SAM/2023/00028, SAM/2021/00027, SAM/2018/00050, SAM/2018/00069.
  
 +59 For the avoidance of doubt, should you decline to disclose this information pursuant to your duty of candour, we also request this information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
  
 +===== Aarhus Convention claim =====
  
-----+60 The Claimant considers this to be an Aarhus Convention claim within CPR r.46.24(2) and so claims the costs protection which arises. The Defendant is invited to agree. If the Defendant disagrees then please explain why pursuant to the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol.
  
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-11_1.png}}+===== Legal advisers dealing with this claim =====
  
 +61 Goodenough Ring Solicitors, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London EC4Y 0HP attention Alice Goodenough at <agoodenough@grsolicitors.co.uk> and Toby Fisher, Matrix Chambers.
  
-**Further information requested ** +===== Address for reply and service of court documents =====
-32.  We enclose the following disclosure in response to your request and pursuant to our +
-duty of candour: +
-(1)  A  map  setting  out  the  locations  of  the  excluded  areas  under  the  New  Licence +
-(request (i)), +
-(2)  The “gateway” internal decision making records (request (iv)); and +
-(3)  All advice provided to the MMO by Cefas in relation to the development of sampling +
-plans for both the Previous Licence and New Licence. This covers (v)(a)-(b), (vi) +
-and  (viii).  Cefas  were  not  asked  to  validate  the  plume  dispersion  modelling +
-provided by the Interested Party, as such the MMO holds nothing under (v)(c).  +
-**Conclusion / next steps ** +
-33.  For all of these reasons, the proposed claim is unarguable and will be defended in full. +
-Further, as set out above, the proposed Claimant is invited to submit any evidence which +
-he considers should lead the MMO to taking a different decision in relation to the ongoing +
-licensing of the regulated activity. If the claim is brought, it will be resisted in full.+
  
-Yours faithfully+62 The address for reply and service of court documents is as above. We also accept service by email. We would prefer not to be sent hard copies of documents unless they are specifically requested.
  
-**K Hayes +63 The Defendant and Interested Party are also requested to confirm whether they will accept electronic service of any claim that is issued. If so, please confirm the email address(es) to which service should be effected and whether there are any limitations on their acceptance of electronic service such as file size.
-** +
-Kerry Hayes +
-Drafting & Advisory Lawyer +
-+44 (0) 2077142806 +
-legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk+
  
 +**Period for reply**
  
 +64 Please confirm safe receipt. **__Please reply substantively by noon on 18 December 2025.__**
  
-1 Footnote 1 of PAPL 1 includes a link to a webpage discussing evidence of Polychlorinated Biphenyl levels in underweight seal pups within the Tees estuary. The MMO has not previously been provided with this information which will be reviewed. However, we note that the authors of the blog-post do not suggest any connection between the PCB contamination and the disposal of dredged material at Tees Bay A. Such a connection would not be consistent with Cefas’ advise that the material is suitable for disposal at the Disposal Site.+Yours faithfully,
  
-2 Which, in the event of a claim, the MMO will submit is an additional reason why the court should refuse permission/relief+**Goodenough Ring Solicitors**
  
251204pre-action_protocol_letter_-_grs_to_mmo.1777529849.txt.gz · Last modified: by nefcadmin