Differences

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

--- 251224mmo_response_to_pap_letter [2026/04/29 20:54] – created nefcadmin
+++ 251224mmo_response_to_pap_letter [2026/04/30 06:35] (current) – nefcadmin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Marine Management Organisation  legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk
+Marine Management Organisation, Tyneside House, Skinnerburn Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR
-Tyneside House
-+44 (0) 2077142806
-Skinnerburn Road
-**www.gov.uk/mmo **
-Newcastle upon Tyne
-NE4 7AR
-BY EMAIL ONLY -[[mailto:agoodenough@grsolicitors.co.uk| agoodenough@grsolicitors.co.uk
+legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk, www.gov.uk/mmo, +44 (0) 2077142806
-]]
-Alice Goodenough
+BY EMAIL ONLY
-Your reference: GIB00001
-Goodenough Ring Solicitors
-Our reference: MLA/2025/00263
-Temple Chambers
--7 Temple Avenue
-London
-ECY4 0HA
-December 2025
+Alice Goodenough, Goodenough Ring Solicitors, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London, ECY4 0HA
+Your reference: GIB00001, Our reference: MLA/2025/00263
+December 2025
 Dear Sir or Madam,
-**MLA/2025/00263 – Response to PAP letter**
+===== MLA/2025/00263 – Response to PAP letter =====
    * 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.
@@ Line 34: / Line 22: @@
       * (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.
+   * 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**”).
@@ Line 41: / Line 29: @@
       * (4) The interested party is PD Teesport Limited (“**the Interested Party**”).
-==== Details of the matter being challenged ====
+===== 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**”).
-==== Legal and policy framework ====
+===== Legal and policy framework =====
    * 9. The legal and policy framework at paragraphs 7 to 20 of PAPL 1 is acknowledged.
@@ Line 62: / Line 50: @@
       * (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 ====
+===== Response to the Claim =====
-   * 12.  The claim is unarguable and will be defended in full. ** Ground 1: Irrational application of sampling guidance
+   * 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**  //
+      * “//**Summary**//
-//34. The analysis of the data provided for previous licence to discharged licence
+      * //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. //
-condition 5.2.3. for year nine sampling are suitable to support the application for
+      * //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. //
-this renewal for a ten-year licence for the continued use of Tees Bay A (TY160) for
+      * //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.//”
-the  disposal  of  maintenance  dredge  material  from  Tees  and  Hartlepool.  The
+   * 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.
-material remains acceptable for disposal to sea. //
+   * 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.
-//35. The applicant should provide the MMO with accurately completed templates
+   * 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.
-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.//”
+==== Ground 2: Failure to consider impact on water quality in the marine strategy area ====
+    * 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.
+   * 20.  MMO gave detailed consideration to the question as to whether the dredged material is 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 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 material and also consulted Natural England and the Environment Agency.
+   * 21.  The  MMO  also  concluded,  having  identified  potential  affected  species  and  habitats within the wider marine environment that the proposal was “//unlikely to adversely affect other habitats/species//<sup>4</sup>.
+   * 22.  None  of  these  assessments  were  based  on  the  “//false  comparison//”  you  allege  at paragraph 43(b) of PAPL 1; the MMO were assessing the consequences of permitting 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 disposal of other dredging arisings.
+   * 23.  These technical conclusions led the MMO to a conclusion that the  proposals were in accordance  with  relevant  policies,  including  NE-WQ-1.  This  conclusion  cannot realistically be impugned:
+      * (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 Regulations]”.
+      * (2)  The 2010 Regulations implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (“**the 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 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 be achieved through the development of marine strategies under regulation 5, to which all public authorities must have regard in the exercise of relevant functions (see regulation 9).
+      * (3)  Under the UK’s Marine Strategy, the UK’s waters are divided into sub-regions, the relevant sub-region being the Greater North Sea<sup>5</sup>. The UK Marine Strategy Part One (2019), Part Three (2025) and consultation draft of the most recent update to Part One all identify that GES for Contaminants (D8) has not been attained in the Greater North Sea. However, the mechanism to achieve GES is via the measures set  out  (most  recently)  in  Part  Three  (2025).  These  do  not  indicate  that 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 4: Failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment ====
+   * 25.  As  PAPL  2  recognises,  the  MMO  carried  out  a  Habitats  Regulations  Assessment (“**HRA**”)  in  relation  to  the  New  Licence.  The  HRA  identifies  relevant  impacts  and assesses  them  against  the  conservation  objectives  and  advice  provided  by  Natural England,  using  the  Advice on Operations  decision  aid.  The  author  applied  this  along 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.
+==== Ground 5: EIA ====
+   * 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 review<sup>6</sup>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.
+==== **Further information requested ====
+   * 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
+legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk
+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.
+Which, in the event of a claim, the MMO will submit is an additional reason why the court should refuse permission/relief
-----
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-6_1.png}}
-.  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.
-.  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 ne[[2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT.html#6|w3 ]]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.
-.  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 **
-.  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.
 Inserted in the 2024 update.
-----
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-7_1.png}}
-.  MMO gave detailed consideration to the question as to whether the dredged material is
-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
-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
-material and also consulted Natural England and the Environment Agency.
-.  The  MMO  also  concluded,  having  identified  potential  affected  species  and  habitats
-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.]]
-.  None  of  these  assessments  were  based  on  the  “//false  comparison//”  you  allege  at
-paragraph 43(b) of PAPL 1; the MMO were assessing the consequences of permitting
-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
-disposal of other dredging arisings.
-.  These technical conclusions led the MMO to a conclusion that the  proposals were in
-accordance  with  relevant  policies,  including  NE-WQ-1.  This  conclusion  cannot
-realistically be impugned:
-(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
-Regulations]”.
-(2)  The 2010 Regulations implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (“**the **
-**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
-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
-be achieved through the development of marine strategies under regulation 5, to
-which all public authorities must have regard in the exercise of relevant functions
-(see regulation 9).
 See answer to Gateway 3 response at Q10.
-----
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-8_1.png}}
-(3)  Under the UK’s Marine Strategy, the UK’s waters are divided into sub-regions, the
-relevant sub-region being the Greater North S[[2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT.html#8|ea5.]] The UK Marine Strategy Part
-One (2019), Part Three (2025) and consultation draft of the most recent update to
-Part One all identify that GES for Contaminants (D8) has not been attained in the
-Greater North Sea. However, the mechanism to achieve GES is via the measures
-set  out  (most  recently)  in  Part  Three  (2025).  These  do  not  indicate  that
-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 **
-.  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.
 https:%%//%%moat.Cefas.co.uk/introduction-to-uk-marine-strategy/
-----
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-9_1.png}}
-**Ground 4: Failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment **
-.  As  PAPL  2  recognises,  the  MMO  carried  out  a  Habitats  Regulations  Assessment
-(“**HRA**”)  in  relation  to  the  New  Licence.  The  HRA  identifies  relevant  impacts  and
-assesses  them  against  the  conservation  objectives  and  advice  provided  by  Natural
-England,  using  the  Advice on Operations  decision  aid.  The  author  applied  this  along
-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.
-.  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.
-----
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-10_1.png}}
-**Ground 5: EIA **
-.  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.
-.  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).
-.  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.
-.  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.
-.  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.
 AC-2025-LON-002797
-----
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-11_1.png}}
-**Further information requested **
-.  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 **
-.  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
-**K Hayes
-**
-Kerry Hayes
-Drafting & Advisory Lawyer
-+44 (0) 2077142806
-legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk
-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.
-Which, in the event of a claim, the MMO will submit is an additional reason why the court should refuse permission/relief