North East File Collection - NEFC

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
251224mmo_response_to_pap_letter

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
251224mmo_response_to_pap_letter [2026/04/30 06:21] – nefcadmin251224mmo_response_to_pap_letter [2026/04/30 06:35] (current) – nefcadmin
Line 68: Line 68:
  
     * 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.      * 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 +   * 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. 
-suitable  for  disposal  at  sea,  concluding  that  it  is  and  that  the  proposals  were  in +   * 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>. 
-accordance  with  the  North  East  Marine  Plan  (see  second  paragraph  of  the  MMO’s +   * 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. 
-Decision  Letter  dated  5  November  2025).  In  the  course  of  our  consideration  MMO +   * 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: 
-sought and obtained detailed advice from Cefas on the chemical characteristics of the +      * (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]”.  
-material and also consulted Natural England and the Environment Agency.   +      * (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). 
-21.  The  MMO  also  concluded,  having  identified  potential  affected  species  and  habitats +      * (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.  
-within the wider marine environment that the proposal was “//unlikely to adversely affect // +      * (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. 
-//other habitats/species//[[2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT.html#7|”4.]] +
-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). +
- +
-4 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 ** +
-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. +
- +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-5 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 ** +
-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.   +
- +
- +
- +
- +
----- +
- +
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-10_1.png}} +
- +
- +
-**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 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. +
- +
- +
- +
- +
-6 AC-2025-LON-002797 +
- +
- +
- +
----- +
- +
-{{2025.12.24%20PAP%20response%20OUT-11_1.png}}+
  
 +==== 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.
  
-**Further information requested ** +==== Ground 4: Failure to carry out a lawful appropriate assessment ==== 
-32.  We enclose the following disclosure in response to your request and pursuant to our +   * 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: 
-duty of candour: +      * (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”. // 
-(1)  A  map  setting  out  the  locations  of  the  excluded  areas  under  the  New  Licence +      * (2)  Relevant baseline pressures at the site would not be increased from the current position.  
-(request (i)), +      * (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 
-(2)  The “gateway” internal decision making records (request (iv)); and +      * (4)  Natural  England  had  been  consulted  on  the  application,  and  again  on  the  draft HRA, and had raised no objection. 
-(3)  All advice provided to the MMO by Cefas in relation to the development of sampling +   * 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.   
-plans for both the Previous Licence and New Licence. This covers (v)(a)-(b), (vi) +==== Ground 5: EIA ==== 
-and  (viii).  Cefas  were  not  asked  to  validate  the  plume  dispersion  modelling +   * 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. 
-provided by the Interested Party, as such the MMO holds nothing under (v)(c).  +   * 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).  
-**Conclusion / next steps ** +   * 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. 
-33.  For all of these reasons, the proposed claim is unarguable and will be defended in full. +   * 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.  
-Further, as set out above, the proposed Claimant is invited to submit any evidence which +   * 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. 
-he considers should lead the MMO to taking a different decision in relation to the ongoing +==== **Further information requested ==== 
-licensing of the regulated activity. If the claim is brought, it will be resisted in full.+   * 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 Yours faithfully
  
-**K Hayes 
-** 
-Kerry Hayes 
-Drafting & Advisory Lawyer 
-+44 (0) 2077142806 
 legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk legalteamhq@marinemanagement.org.uk
  
Line 251: Line 113:
 3 Inserted in the 2024 update. 3 Inserted in the 2024 update.
  
 +4 See answer to Gateway 3 response at Q10.
 +
 +5 https:%%//%%moat.Cefas.co.uk/introduction-to-uk-marine-strategy/
 +
 +6 AC-2025-LON-002797
251224mmo_response_to_pap_letter.1777530103.txt.gz · Last modified: by nefcadmin