North East File Collection - NEFC

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • mmo_-_mlas_-_2017 • river_tees_contamination_excluded_areas_and_sampling • mmo_-_mlas_-_2023 • mmo_-_mlas_-_2018 • river_tees_-_ais_of_dredging_vessels • crab_die-off_eir_requests • mmo_-_mlas_-_2014 • particle_size_and_contamination • river_tees_areas_excluded_from_dredging • mmo_-_mlas_-_2024
260602_cefas_tees_bay_a_disposal_sampling_responses

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
260602_cefas_tees_bay_a_disposal_sampling_responses [2026/09/08 08:32] – created nefcadmin260602_cefas_tees_bay_a_disposal_sampling_responses [2026/09/08 08:49] (current) – nefcadmin
Line 88: Line 88:
 ===== Documents reviewed ===== ===== Documents reviewed =====
  
-5. SAM/2024/00054 – Application Form (for the previous corresponding sampling advice request). +5. [[this>RiverTees/Planning/SAM_2024_00054/SAM_2024_00054-APPLICATION-FORM.pdf|SAM/2024/00054 – Application Form]] (for the previous corresponding sampling advice request). 
  
-6. MLA/2025/00263 Advice from Cefas to MMO: Renewal Application  +6. [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Consultations/20250823 MLA202500263 Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge - Renewal Application SEAL Advice FINAL.pdf|MLA/2025/00263 Advice from Cefas to MMO: Renewal Application Maintenance Dredging at Tees and Hartelpool by PD Teesport Middlesborough, 24th July 2025]]. (accessed from Cefas files July 2024). 
-Maintenance Dredging at Tees and Hartelpool by PD Teesport Middlesborough, 24th July 2025.  +
-(accessed from Cefas files July 2024). +
  
 ===== Description of the proposed works ===== ===== Description of the proposed works =====
  
-7. In November 2025, PD Teesport were granted marine licence L/2025/00366/1 which  +7. In November 2025, PD Teesport were granted marine licence L/2025/00366/1 which permitted the renewal of their previously held licence (L/2015/00427/7) to dispose of maintenance dredgings from the Tees River and Hartlepool at Tees Bay A disposal site (TY160). The total volumes permitted equated to 2,889,700 wet tonnes in 2025 to Tees Bay A (TY160) disposal site per year. 
-permitted the renewal of their previously held licence (L/2015/00427/7) to dispose of  +
-maintenance dredgings from the Tees River and Hartlepool at Tees Bay A disposal site  +
-(TY160). The total volumes permitted equated to 2,889,700 wet tonnes in 2025 to Tees  +
-Bay A (TY160) disposal site per year. +
  
-8. Following a formal Judicial Review of the licence, the MMO took the decision to not defend  +8. Following a formal Judicial Review of the licence, the MMO took the decision to not defend the case and subsequently the licence was ascribed a suspended quashing order in the High Cour[[20260602_Tees_Bay_A_Disposal-sampling-responses.html#3|t1.]] As such, disposal of dredged aterial under the existing licence (L/2025/00366/1) can be undertaken until the quashing order comes into force in March 2027, after which point, a new marine licence will be required for the activities in question to take place. 
-the case and subsequently the licence was ascribed a suspended quashing order in the  +
-High Cour[[20260602_Tees_Bay_A_Disposal-sampling-responses.html#3|t1.]] As such, disposal of dredged material under the existing licence  +
-(L/2025/00366/1) can be undertaken until the quashing order comes into force in March  +
-2027, after which point, a new marine licence will be required for the activities in question  +
-to take place. +
  
-9. As this licence relates to the disposal of maintenance dredged material necessary for the  +9. As this licence relates to the disposal of maintenance dredged material necessary for the operations of PD Teesport, a new marine licence application is almost certain. On this basis, the MMO is further consulting Cefas on the sampling requirements that will be sufficient to support the licence application. No new information has been provided for review. 
-operations of PD Teesport, a new marine licence application is almost certain. On this  +
-basis, the MMO is further consulting Cefas on the sampling requirements that will be  +
-sufficient to support the licence application. No new information has been provided for  +
-review. +
    
 ===== Responses to Questions posed by the MMO Case Officer. ===== ===== Responses to Questions posed by the MMO Case Officer. =====
Line 121: Line 106:
 **MMO Question 1. Are you content the sampling analysis provides enough information to ascertain if the material can be disposed of at sea? (Question 2) If yes please provide justification. If no, how many additional samples are required and why, please provide locations and depths of these samples.** **MMO Question 1. Are you content the sampling analysis provides enough information to ascertain if the material can be disposed of at sea? (Question 2) If yes please provide justification. If no, how many additional samples are required and why, please provide locations and depths of these samples.**
  
-10. The sampling undertaken to support the application for L/2025/00366/1 (MLA/2025/00263)  +10. The sampling undertaken to support the application for L/2025/00366/1 (MLA/2025/00263) was advised on under SAM/2024/00054. The application advice (document in point 6 – [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Consultations/20250823 MLA202500263 Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge - Renewal Application SEAL Advice FINAL.pdf|Cefas, 24th July 2025]]) reviewed the data and found it appropriate to support the application, and the advice ultimately concluded that the material remained acceptable for disposal at sea under OSPAR and London Protocol (LP) guidelines. To summarise the comments raised for the data: 
-was advised on under SAM/2024/00054. The application advice (document in point 6 –  +
-Cefas, 24th July 2025) reviewed the data and found it appropriate to support the  +
-application, and the advice ultimately concluded that the material remained acceptable for  +
-disposal at sea under OSPAR and London Protocol (LP) guidelines. To summarise the  +
-comments raised for the data: +
  
 i. The number of samples collected (n = 31) was slightly below the effort recommended by OSPAR, but that the sampling undertaken was nonetheless considered adequate to provide spatial coverage to assess sediment quality of the material to be considered for disposal at sea.  i. The number of samples collected (n = 31) was slightly below the effort recommended by OSPAR, but that the sampling undertaken was nonetheless considered adequate to provide spatial coverage to assess sediment quality of the material to be considered for disposal at sea. 
Line 163: Line 143:
 |>100,000|Extra 5 per 100,000 m²| |>100,000|Extra 5 per 100,000 m²|
    
-16. OSPAR Guidelines are not mandatory but are instead guidelines to encourage consistently high standards across the OSPAR area, whilst also allowing for flexibility and adaptation where it is deemed appropriate. The face of the OSPAR Guidelines (Agreement 2014-06, Update 2024) (s1.3) states very clearly that: “All assessments are on national basis and not dictated by OSPAR”,   whilst s2.5 states that:  “the detailed procedures described in the guidelines will not be applicable in all national or local circumstances.”  +16. OSPAR Guidelines are not mandatory but are instead guidelines to encourage consistently high standards across the OSPAR area, whilst also allowing for flexibility and adaptation where it is deemed appropriate. The face of the OSPAR Guidelines (Agreement 2014-06, Update 2024) (s1.3) states very clearly that: “All assessments are on national basis and not dictated by OSPAR”, whilst s2.5 states that:  “the detailed procedures described in the guidelines will not be applicable in all national or local circumstances.”  
    
 ===== Sub-section 3. Local context and history of the site ===== ===== Sub-section 3. Local context and history of the site =====
260602_cefas_tees_bay_a_disposal_sampling_responses.1788856320.txt.gz · Last modified: by nefcadmin