North East File Collection - NEFC

• 6. I am a retired industrial chemist with over 30 years of experience in colloid science, surface chemistry, physical measurement, and polymeric materials. I hold qualifications from Imperial College (BSc and PhD) and am a Visiting Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Manchester (retired). My career focused on the interaction between chemicals and particle surfaces, the statistical validity of sampling heterogeneous materials, the modeling of complex physical systems, and transport in polymeric materials.
• 7. I have extensive career experience specializing for over 20 years in colloid science and surface analysis at ICI and latterly in corrosion protection by polymeric materials at AkzoNobel. My background involves the precise characterization of how chemicals are adsorbed onto surfaces and absorbed into particles. This is the fundamental physical mechanism governing how historical industrial toxins (such as PCBs) bind to river sediment. I was also involved in the design of rigorous testing protocols for heterogeneous industrial materials, determining the statistical validity of sampling regimes specifically, calculating the minimum sample density required to detect 'out-of-spec' anomalies (hotspots) within large-scale production outputs.
• 8. During my career, I was a lead specialist in designing measurement protocols for complex, heterogeneous materials. This required developing rigorous statistical frameworks to ensure that small-scale samples accurately represented large-scale industrial outputs.
• 9. I am a former manager of a physical measurement group specializing in particle analysis (sizing, surface area, and heterogeneity) and the development of robotic/automated testing systems for scale-up operations. Dredging is fundamentally a particle transport issue.
• 10. Since 2022, I have applied my expertise specifically to sediment contamination issues in the River Tees, collaborating with academic researchers to catalogue and scrutinize the environmental risk assessments provided by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). In the last 3 years, I have conducted independent forensic reviews of a range of South Tees planning applications and collaborated with scientists from Durham University.
• 11. I am an active member of the North East Marine Research Group (“NEMRG”), an informal coalition comprising academics from Durham, Newcastle, and Hull Universities, representatives from the North East Fishing Collective, the Fishmongers’ Company’s Fisheries Charitable Trust, and community organizations (including Climate Action Stokesley & Villages and Reclaim Our Sea). NEMRG has been active since approximately 2023.
• 12. My work with NEMRG involves the examination of technical data to ensure regulatory bodies are adequately addressing contamination issues. In 2023, I developed and continue to enhance a bespoke web application that allows for the independent analysis and comparison of sediment quality datasets provided in marine licence applications.
• 13. Between 2022 and 2023, I led a specialist working group (comprising two environmental scientists and a forensic analyst) to conduct a detailed audit of the documentation surrounding a widely-publicized crustacean die-off. We investigated causal links, identified inconsistencies in agency reporting, and assessed risks associated with capital dredging.
• 14. As a part of NEMRG, I engaged with the Environment Agency regarding the extensive contamination caused by the South Bank Quay dredge—an event now documented on the Marine Case Management System’s Public Register.
• 15. I have presented written and oral evidence and technical critiques to various regulatory and governmental bodies, including the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee (at the inquiry into the crustacean die-off), the Multi-Council Crustacean Die-off Working Group (detailing the risks of Teesworks developments and specifically highlighting the environmental dangers of trailing suction hopper dredgers operating with overspill), the MMO (technical representations objecting to marine licence applications), and a 2023 joint meeting with the MMO, Environment Agency, and Natural England (to formally articulate our ongoing concerns regarding the deteriorating state of the River Tees). * 16. My overarching objective in relation to my activities outlined above is to try to address contamination in the River Tees with a view to improving the state of the river and the wider environment. ==== Permitted dredging area ==== * 17. My application for judicial review relates to the MMO’s decision to grant a ten-year marine licence for the disposal of dredged material. I understand dredging by PD Teesport Limited (“the IP”) as the Port Authority is permitted by the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act does not, however, authorize the disposal of dredged material at sea, which requires a marine licence. The 2025 licence (L/2025/00366/1) was granted by the MMO on 5 November 2025 (“the Licence”) [CB/A66-78]. * 18. The Licence permits dredged material taken from areas defined in Schedule 2 and 3 of the licence to be disposed at Tees Bay A (as defined in Schedule 1) and excludes dredged material from certain locations defined at 5.2.3 from being disposed at Tees Bay A (“the Licenced Dredging Area”)[CB/A79-96]. * 19. Also included with the licence online were ‘shape files’, which are files that can be read by specific computer software to plot geographical locations. I used those shape files to produce a map that can be found at SG1/2; [CB/A119]. I believe this shows the same area as the IP’s map at p.11 of Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (“the Baseline Document”) [CB/A382]. * 20. I have checked the shape files against Schedules 2 and 3 of the licence, and I believe they mirror one another. * 21. On the basis of the shape files and schedules 2 and 3, I therefore calculate that the total area from which dredged material may be disposed at sea is 12,104,900m2. * 22. Based on the IP’s navigation channel documentation, I understand that approximately 6,300,000m2 or slightly over 50% of the total area from which dredged material can be disposed at sea, has historically been dredged [CB/A265-271]. * 23. Pursuant to section 5.2.3 of the licence, dredged material from certain areas must be excluded from disposal at sea [CB/A75-76]. I asked for information about these areas before the licence was granted, but responses from the MMO indicated that they did not hold the information [CB/A322-329] (see para. 58 below). Following pre-action correspondence, the MMO has sent a map showing approximate locations of the excluded areas [SB/C799]. ==== Disposal area and the surrounding environment ==== 24.

Included in the claim bundle is a map showing the disposal area, Tees Bay A, the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) boundary, and the water bodies regulated under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 [SB/C988-992].

25.

Also included in the claim bundle is a map showing the Greater North Sea area of the Marine Strategy Area [SB/C891].

26.

The Licenced Dredging Area lies within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA. According to Natural England:

The SPA comprises of a wide variety of habitats including: intertidal sand and mudflats, rocky shore, saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, saline lagoons, sand dunes and estuarine and coastal waters on and around the Tees estuary, which has been considerably modified by human activities. These habitats provide feeding and roosting opportunities for important number of waterbirds in winter and during passage periods including in particular common redshank, red knot and ruff, which occur in internationally important numbers. Freshwater and brackish pools also support breeding avocet during summer.

The saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA are of great importance to a diverse assemblage of bird species. Mudflats support high densities of benthic invertebrates, including worms, molluscs and crustaceans, which provide an important food resource for migrant and overwintering SPA bird species. Areas of saltmarsh provide significant feeding and roosting opportunities for many species of waterbird including common redshank and red knot.

In summer, little tern breed on the sandy beaches within the site and feed out at sea while the common tern, which breed at various locations, feed within the River Tees and associated water bodies and within the wider estuary mouth and bay. In late summer, Sandwich tern aggregate in important numbers at Coatham Sands, Seal Sands, North Gare Sands/Seaton Snook and Bran Sands when on passage. (p.5) [CB/A422]

27.

The SPA is designated for the following features:

• Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta - A132-A, b • Common tern, Sterna hirundo - A193, b • Knot, Calidris canutus - A143, nb • Little tern, Sterna albifrons - A195, b • Redshank, Tringa totanus - A162, nb

A106

6

• Ruff, Calidris pugnax - A151, nb • Sandwich tern, Thalasseus sandvicensis, syn. Sterna sandvicensis -

A191, nb

• Waterbird assemblage

28.

The site is currently in unfavourable condition as a result of nutrients, namely nitrogen. I understand that the SPA is not regularly tested for the presence of toxic chemicals, but I note that in its consultation response on the IP’s application, Natural England noted that the Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the SPA contains a target to

“reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according

to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive, avoiding deterioration from existing levels.” [SB/B713]

29.

The permitted dredging area also lies within the Tees Coastal Water Body and the Tees Water Body.

30.

The Tees Coastal Water Body runs parallel to the coastline and is a coastal water body with an area of 8,844 ha. It has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of specific pollutants and fails to meet standards for some priority hazardous substances, including mercury and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) [CB/A120].

31.

The ‘Tees Water Body’ is a transitional water body covering an area of 1,148ha. It currently has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of numerous pollutants and fails to meet standards required for priority hazardous substances such as benzo(g-h-
i)perylene, mercury, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and tributyltin compounds. The reason for not achieving ‘good’ status is either due to industry, is unknown, or cannot be attributed.[CB/A120]

32.

Also of relevance to this area is the UK Marine Strategy Part One (2019) [SB/C874]. Tees Bay A sits within the Greater North Sea area. The Strategy makes clear that:

a. Harbour seals in the Greater North Sea have not yet achieved Good

Environmental Status (“GES”) and there is a lack of certainty about the causes of decline (pp 51-53);

b. Highly persistent legacy chemicals such as PCBs in marine sediments and

biota are the cause of the few failures to achieve GES in respect of the ‘contaminant’ descriptor, mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources (pp 75 - 79).

33.

The UK Marine Strategy Part Three: 2025 UK programme of measures, confirms that pollution and toxins, including the prevalence of pollutants (for example, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment and cetaceans, are a threat to harbour seals (p.11), although the cause of harbour seal decline is unknown (p.11) [SB/C931]. Furthermore, in relation to

A107

7

contaminants, failures to meet GES come from highly persistent legacy chemicals mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources (2.12.1). It is recognised that:

“Actions to address the following would support the maintenance of GES related to Contaminants (D8) and the further safeguarding of the UK marine environment: • legacy chemicals in sediment and biota
• new chemicals or groups of chemicals with the potential to adversely impact
sea life and human health that are continually being identified (for example,
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: PFAS) (para.2.12.1)” [SB/933].

IP’s application

34.

I first learnt that the IP had applied for the Licence on 7 July 2025 (“the Application”)
[CB/A344]. I contacted the MMO to point out that no documents were visible on the
MCMS Public Register. This was rectified on 9 July 2025.

35.

The Application included the IP’s Baseline Document [CB/A366-486]. The Baseline
Document includes plume modelling for Tees Bay A at Figures 6-3 and 6-7 (pages 33-
34).

36.

At SG1/3; [CB/A119] is a map showing the plume modelling overlaid on the map
showing the SPA boundary. It shows that the modelled plume from disposal at Tees
Bay A will reach very close to the SPA.

37.

The IP’s modelling does not appear to have been updated since first prepared for the
2006 Environmental Statement for the Northern Gateway Container Terminal
(para.6.1.4, Baseline document) [CB/A404]. From the description in the 2006 ES, it
appears that this modelling assumes only ‘calm (no wave) conditions’ (p.451) so does
not model for more dynamic sea conditions. It also appears to assume disposal in the
centre of the disposal quadrant only [CB/A182]. In fact, disposal will take place
throughout the entire quadrant depending on the month of the year (Fig 3-3, Baseline
document) [CB/A390]. As such, the IP’s model is not an exact description of the
effects and suffers from inherent uncertainty. On the basis of the modelling provided,
it is at least possible to say that there is a real risk that the plume would, at times,
reach into the SPA. Despite almost 20 years of disposal at Tees Bay A since the model
was first produced, it does not appear that there has been any real-life monitoring or
measurement of the plume to assess the model’s accuracy.

38.

However, in 2022, CEFAS, following a mass crustacean die-off event, shows the plume
from disposal at Tees Bay A entering the SPA and remaining suspended for at least 72
hours after disposal [CB/A203]. I exhibit at SG1/4 an annotated map showing the
CEFAS plume in comparison to the SPA [CB/A121].

A108

8

39.

It is clear from the mid-licence sediment analysis carried out by the IP in 2017/18 and 2024, and submitted by the IP in support of the application, that the plume contains sediment with levels of contamination that would not ordinarily be safe for disposal at sea.

40.

In accordance with OSPAR requirements, Cefas applies formal “action levels” (‘ALs’) to certain pollutants and (since 2020) has applied de facto ALs known as “other assessment criteria” for pollutants for which the AL levels are recommended for revision and to pollutants without formal ALs. The IP’s mid-licence sediment analysis shows:

a. In the year 3 (2018 and 2019) results:

i. 36 samples from the benthic environment of the River Tees, taken in 2019,

indicated that there were concentrations of metals, the majority of PAH compounds, C-napthalenes, phenanthrene, and PCBs in excess of Cefas AL1, and high concentrations of total hydrocarbons. In some samples, levels of BDE209 were far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to 407

g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 47.5 g/kg) [CB/A446].

ii. 10 surface sediment samples taken upstream in December 2018 showed one

exceedance each of AL2 for PCB, mercury and zinc, and BDE209 far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to 912

g/kg as compared to the AL2

threshold of 47.5

g/kg) [CB/A448.

iii. For Low Molecular Weight (‘LMW’) PAHs, only one sample out of a total of 57

samples was below the AL1 “other assessment criteria”, and only four of the 57 samples were below the AL2 “other assessment criteria”, meaning the vast majority exceeded the AL2 “other assessment criteria” [CB/A446-450].

b. In the year 9 results (2024) of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic

environment of the Harbour, taken in 2024:

i. levels of metals were in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 [CB/A460];

ii. levels of LMW PAHs in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to

4820

g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 3160g/kg) [CB/A460-466];

iii. levels of PBDEs, BDE209, BDE99 and BDE100 far in excess of the AL2 “other

assessment criteria”: BDE209 up to 337

g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold

of 47.5

g/kg; BDE99 up to 6g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of

1.0

g/kg; BDE100 up to 1.27g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 1g/kg

[CB/A460-466].

A109

9

41.

For reasons that are unclear, while these exceedances would ordinarily render the material unsafe for disposal at sea if dredged from any other river in England, the MMO has permitted the material to be disposed at Tees Bay A because the material is taken from a river with historically and consistently high levels of pollution.

Representations regarding the Application 42.

On 6 August 2025, I submitted objections to the Application on behalf of the NEMRG, including a cover note [SB/B575], a representation [SB/B601] and supporting evidence [SB/577-600]. Amongst other concerns, I highlighted the following issues:

a. More frequent sampling is required; b. Current and past sampling is insufficient (the sediment quality analyses are

insufficient and treat the samples as being homogenous and coming from a river with predictable sediment quality);

c. Proposed sampling fails to satisfy OSPAR guidelines; d. A precautionary approach should be adopted, particularly because of

crustacean die-offs and seal pup mortality;

e. The method of dredging is inappropriate in the Tees Estuary (using a

trailing suction hopper dredger (“TSHD”) and allowing overspill) and is dangerously outdated, with no monitoring during dredging or any annual calendar of ecological sensitivity; and

f. Alternatives for the disposal of dredged material should be assessed.

[CB/A550-574; A601-699].

43.

My concerns about inadequate sampling arose from the fact that only a small number of samples have been undertaken in the past relative to the size of the contaminated area from which this material is dredged.

44.

Concerns that the 2025 licence would not improve on this low level of historical sampling were raised by the sample plan advice for mid-licence sampling in relation to the 2015-2025 licence (L/2015/00427/7), which again required limited sampling despite suggesting the sampling plan was ‘in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material’ (the “OSPAR Guidelines) [CB/A258-
246].

45.

Although a second letter from the MMO to the IP about mid licence sediment sampling under the 2015 licence stated that “MMO remind the applicant that new sampling will be required for any future Marine Licence applications” [CB/A342-343], upon calling and emailing the MMO, I learnt that no more samples would be taken, as the samples from October 2024 were considered sufficient to inform their recommendations for the licence [SB/B548-549].

A110

10

46.

Considering the industrialized nature of the Tees for over a century, it is widely accepted, including by the MMO and the IP, that there are a range of contaminants in the benthic environment, sometimes at levels that are clearly harmful to the marine environment [CB/A383-389; SB/B544; SB/B713; SB/B664-673]. For example, I exhibit a map showing the location of harmful contaminants (Low Molecular Weight (LMW) Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)) at levels that should not ordinarily be disposed of at sea, based on CEFAS’ interpretation of the IP’s 2024 sampling under the 2015 licence [SG1/5; CB/A122]. The map shows that sediment removed from 29 of the 31 sampled locations would ordinarily be considered unsafe for disposal at sea.

47.

It is also clear that there is a lack of homogeneity in the benthic environment, not least since six areas are excluded from the disposal licence due to contamination [CB/A387-388; SB/B544; CB/A75-77; SB/B664-673].

48.

Moreover, there is both long-standing and recent evidence that PCB contamination of the food chain is contributing to the high and unsustainable levels of Tees seal pup mortality (PCBs bioaccumulate higher up the food chain, posing greater risks to mammals at the top of the food chain, such as seals, cetaceans, and humans). It is likely that dredging and/or disposal of dredged material is contributing to the high level of PCBs in seals. I referenced evidence relating to seal pup mortality in my consultation responses [SB/B553; SB/B565-566]. The evidence, which I linked in footnotes to my consultation responses, is exhibited at [CB/A164-179; CB/A277-298]

49.

I have conducted a detailed analysis of the spatial resolution of sampling proposed in the 2024 sampling plan [SG1/6, CB/A123]. On the basis of that analysis:

a. It appears that the MMO has required only 20 samples to be produced from the

industrialized river channel (Chart Sectors 1–9), which covers 10 to 12 kilometers of river; and

b. In specific instances, such as Chart Sector 4 and Chart Sector 5, the plan relies on

a single sample to verify over a kilometer of riverbed.

50.

Although the MMO claims to apply OSPAR Guidelines on sediment sampling, it appears that the samples required from the IP by the MMO were dramatically less than what is required by the OSPAR Guidelines [SB/C166-169]. In particular, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of those Guidelines require samples to take account not only of the volume of material to be dredged (by reference to the ‘volumetric table’) but also of the area to be dredged (by reference to the ‘spatial table’ at para.5.3). The MMO’s sampling plan from 2024 upon which reliance is placed for the Licence appears to have only considered the volume of the material to be dredged, and did not consider the spatial table at all.

A111

11

51.

The Licenced Dredging Area is 12,104,900m2 (see para.21 above). Applying the spatial table to this area, I calculate that the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is 611, almost twenty times the number required by the MMO. Even if the OSPAR Guidelines are applied only to the approximately 50% of the Harbour that has historically been dredged (c. 6,300,000m2) (para.22 above), the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is still 320, more than 10 times the number required by the MMO.

52.

The reason the OSPAR Guidelines require consideration of a spatial approach, alongside a volumetric approach is to ensure that horizontally and vertically heterogeneous benthic environments are properly sampled. A purely volume-based approach assumes the riverbed is a homogeneous tank, ignoring the spatial variance of sediment deposition. It results in a low-level sampling resolution (approx. 1 sample per km), which lacks the statistical power to detect localized contamination hotspots. In a highly heterogenous riverbed like the Tees, that approach gives rise to a very real risk that highly contaminated sediment is missed because the sampling grid is too coarse to detect the hazards. Consequently, the safety data derived from this plan represents a 'false negative': it does not prove the river is safe; it proves only that the sampling grid was too coarse to detect the hazards. Adopting such a coarse sampling grid is therefore providential rather than precautionary. This was the point I made on behalf of NEMRG in our consultation response.

53.

Even using a volume-based approach only, the number of samples required by the MMO appears to be less than required by the application of the volume table at para.5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines. Below is a table showing the samples required using the spatial table and the volume table at para.5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines for the whole licenced area or the area that has historically been dredged.

Area (m2)

Volume (m3)

Samples Required

using Spatial

Approach

Samples Required

using Volume

Approach

Licenced Area

12,104,900

2,400,000

611

35

Estimated Area Dredged

Historically

6,300,000

2,400,000

320

35

The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number of samples should have been 35, not 31.

A112

12

54.

In practice, 31 samples for the total licenced area equates to 1 sample for every 55 football pitches of the licensed area (or 1 sample for every 29 football pitches of the estimated area historically dredged).

55.

The fact that sampling has been undertaken for many years is no answer to the under-
sampling taking place. First, the OSPAR Guidelines are clear that sampling should be repeated every three years. While in some circumstances, this can extend to 5 years, that is only if contamination is below AL1 and there are no material changes to the sediment (e.g dredging) (para.5.5 [CB/A387-388]). Neither condition applies to the Tees. In addition, it is clear that the Tees is a dynamic river, as demonstrated by the fact that mid-licence sampling in 2019 at Billingham’s Reach returned PCBs at levels above AL2 [CB/A387-388]. While subsequent sampling returned samples below AL2, this demonstrates only that the contaminated sediment likely moved elsewhere in the river.

56.

This under-sampling is particularly problematic in relation to areas that are being dredged in close proximity to excluded areas, which are known to contain contaminants at levels prohibited from disposal at sea.

57.

There are several mechanisms by which contaminated material is likely to be carried from exclusion zones into the dredged channels:

i.

‘Sloughing’ - the local physical collapse of the estuary bed at the edge of an exclusion zone resulting in contaminated material falling or sliding into the dredged channel. This occurs as a result of gravity and the slope created by dredging an area adjacent to the exclusion zones.

ii.

‘Scour’ - tidal currents will result in the “stripping” of the surface of the riverbed from the exclusion zone, with the resuspended sediment settling in deeper areas within the dredged river.

iii.

Propeller wash due to ship manoeuvres close to an excluded zone will result in violent resuspension of excluded sediment, which drifts into the river and is deposited in the dredged channel.

iv.

Under certain circumstances a high-concentration mud-like suspension can be formed on the riverbed, which, if this happens in an exclusion zone, will flow under, gravity carrying contamination into the river channel.

Follow-up correspondence with the MMO 58.

On 5 November 2025, I contacted the MMO to request coordinates of areas excluded from dredging and also stated that I believed the licence was in breach of the OSPAR Convention, as it did not consider the inadvertent release of fine particles, which are more contaminated than bulk sediment. I did not receive any response from the MMO [SB/B729-750]. On 30 November 2025, I followed up with the MMO and asked for

A113

13

the missing information for the mid-licence sampling [CB/A323-329]. On 1 December 2025, the MMO informed me that my query had been sent to the licence holder [CB/A322-329]. I responded the same day and stated that the MMO should be able to provide me with a correct version of “MMO_Results_Template MAR00179 V3.xlsm”, which was quoted in licence application MLA/2025/00263 and is on the Public Register as a return to variation 4 of L/2015/00427 [CB/A323]. I noted that the version in the Public Register is missing all coordinates and instead has locations on land. Following pre-action correspondence, the MMO has sent a map showing approximate locations of the excluded areas [SB/C799].

59.

On 5 December 2025, I sent an information request to PD Teesport Limited under the Environmental Information Regulation 2004 requesting information about their dredging and assessment of alternatives [CB/A140-141]. I understand a response will be provided on 5 February 2026 [CB/A150-152].

Aarhus Convention Claim

60.

I am advised that this is an Aarhus Convention claim as defined at CPR 46.24(2)(a) as it is brought by a member of the public (construed in accordance with the Aarhus Convention) by way of judicial review, which challenges the legality of the decision, which is within the scope of 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, there being a wide definition of the environment at Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention.

61.

I understand that the Court rules concerning costs protection in Aarhus Convention claims require me to file a statement of my financial resources (verified by a statement of truth) which provides details of (i) my significant assets, liabilities, income and expenditure and (ii) the aggregate amount of financial support which has been provided and which is likely to be provided to me by any other person.

62.

I therefore exhibit a schedule of my financial resources pursuant to CPR 46.25(1)(b) verified by a statement of truth. I am advised that following the judgment of Mr Justice Dove in

R (RSPB, FoE and ClientEarth) v SSJ and LC [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), the

statement of financial resources is to be regarded as a confidential document.

Costs estimate

63.

I have been advised by my solicitors that they estimate my own costs of this judicial review to be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT if the case progresses in a straightforward manner. Counsel’s fees will be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT. There will also be court fees, including the fee for issue, which is £174, and a continuation fee of £874, and potentially printing costs in the region of £1,000 - £1,500 + VAT for the claim and trial bundle.

A114

14

64.

As to the Defendant’s costs, my solicitors have estimated an exposure to its costs of
circa £10,000 - £25,000 if the case progresses in a straightforward manner. In
addition, I understand that there is also a potential risk that I will be ordered to pay
the costs of the Interested Party, which I am told can often exceed the Defendant’s
claim for costs by a considerable margin.

65.

I believe I can just about afford to bring these proceedings, as there has been some
fund-raising in the local community to meet the costs. I have also set up a
crowdfunding page on CrowdJustice which has, as at the date of this statement, raised
£8,313.

66.

However, I cannot afford exposure to the Defendant and Interested Party’s costs
beyond £5,000. This means that if the Court does not grant me costs protection in
this Aarhus Convention claim, these proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for
me.

67.

The order that I seek is pursuant to CPR 46.26(2)(a) i.e., that the Claimant’s liability
for the Defendant and Interested Party’s costs is limited to £5,000. The liability of the
Defendant for the Claimant’s costs is limited to £35,000 and the liability of the
Interested Parties for the Claimant’s costs is limited to £35,000.

Statement of Truth

68.

I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true, or in context, true to the
best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that proceedings for
contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made,
a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest
belief in its truth.

…………………………………….. DR SIMON GIBBON 13 January 2026

A115

15

For: Claimant

Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon 1st Witness statement

Exhibit: SG1 Made: 13 January 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

AC-2026-LON-

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review

BETWEEN:

DR SIMON GIBBON

Claimant

-and-

MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION

Defendant

-and-

PD TEESPORT LIMITED

Interested Party

_________________________________________

EXHIBIT SG1

_________________________________________

This exhibit marked “SG1” is the exhibit referred to in the first witness statement of Dr Simon Gibbon made on 13 January 2026.

Contents

1. CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit SG1/1 - schedule of the Claimant’s financial resources

pursuant to CPR 46.26…..………………………………………………………………………xx

2. Exhibit SG1/2 - Map of dredging area as defined by Schedules 2 and 3 of the 2025

Licence ………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx

3. Exhibit SG1/3 - Map of Tees Bay A, SPA, and the Water Bodies with IP’s plume

modelling (annotated version of fig.6.5 of the Baseline document)…………….xx

4. Exhibit SG1/4 - Map of CEFAS dispersal plume (Fig.7 of 09.22 report) annotated

to showin location of SPA……………………………………………………………………….xx

5. Exhibit SG1/5 - Map of Low Molecular Weight PAHs at levels of concern and levels

prohibited from disposal based on 2024 sampling…………………………………….xx

6. Exhibit SG1/6 - Claimant's map of spatial resolution of MMO's 2024 sampling

plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx

A116

Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this schedule of financial resources are true, or in context, true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

…………………………… DR SIMON GIBBON 13 January 2026

A118