Differences

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

--- 260906_cefas_eir_request_-_maintenance_dredging_protocol_consultations [2026/09/16 21:17] – [Public Interest Test] nefcadmin
+++ 260906_cefas_eir_request_-_maintenance_dredging_protocol_consultations [2026/09/21 20:03] (current) – [Summary] nefcadmin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===== Cefas EIR Request - Maintenance Dredging Protocol Consultations =====
+===== 260906 Cefas EIR Request - Maintenance Dredging Protocol Consultations =====
+===== Summary =====
+Cefas has never been consulted by a statutory harbour authority on Maintenance Dredging Protocols and only once in 2015 did Cefas provide any advice on the MDP.
+Cefas say that reference to Cefas in previous documents refer to the Marine and Fisheries Agency a predecessor of the MMO.  So they do not expect to be consulted on MDPs and have never been by any Statutory Harbour Authority.  Cefas suggest that the MMO is consulted on the MDP.
+None of this agrees with the processes described in [[https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121031094143mp_/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/documents/mdp-cap.pdf|Maintenance Dredging and The Habitats Regulations 1994 - A Conservation Assessment Protocol for England]], where Cefas's role is well defined, but the Marine and Fisheries Agency is mentioned by name.
+Cefas are consulted extensively by the MMO on marine licence applications involving dredging.
+The MMO say they are not the competent authority for the operations of dredging and as such only provide advice on an MDP where it refers to disposal at sea.
+The SHAs are responsible to keep navigation channels open and so are tasked by specific Acts of Parliament to dredge their ports' navigation channels.  This means the SHAs are the competent authority for the operations involved in maintenance dredging and so are responsible to ensure that these activities are compliant with all environmental legisations/regulations.
+So if the SHAs perform the same function as the MMO do for certain types of dredging why do SHAs not regularly consult Cefas as the MMO do?
+Cefas refered me to the the [[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f46f16ab602a88957eefa2/20260408_Ports_Sandbox_Top_Tips_v3_Final.pdf|Ports Regulatory Sandbox]], while this does mention Cefas explicitly it does state that all MDPs have been signed off by Natural England.  So I await NE's response to a simialr EIR request.
 ===== Request =====
@@ Line 19: / Line 36: @@
 As I do not know when PD Ports consulted yourselves, I am only able to limit the date range to 2010 to the present day inclusive. However, I only require information which is part of a direct request from PD Ports to yourselves on the River Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredging Protocol. I do not require information you have supplied to the Marine Management Organisation as part of the licencing of either capital dredging or disposal of dredge arisings at sea.
-EIR Requests:
+==== EIR Requests: ====
   - Please confirm that PD Ports has consulted yourselves directly on the Port of Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredging Protocol and the years of these consultations.
   - Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes related to PD Ports on the original Maintenance Dredging Protocol you were consulted on.
@@ Line 52: / Line 69: @@
 consulted on.
-The last time Cefas were consulted on and/or commented on the MDP document for the Tees was under MLA/2015/00088 in November 2015, the licence application for the previous Tees maintenance disposal licence. This advice is attached, and the reference to the MDP can be found in point 15. Updates to the Tees MDP were submitted to the MMO throughout that licence period but it does not appear that Cefas explicitly advised on any of these updates. All Cefas advice provided for this licence can be found on the MMO Public Register.
+The last time Cefas were consulted on and/or commented on the MDP document for the Tees was under MLA/2015/00088 in November 2015, the licence application for the previous Tees maintenance disposal licence. This [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2015_00088/Consultations/20151118 MLA201500088 PD Teesport Tees and Hartelpool  maintenance dredge advice final.pdf|advice]] is attached, and the reference to the [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2015_00088/Additional Document/PB3308_101_304258_200215_Final.pdf|MDP]] can be found in point 15. Updates to the Tees MDP were submitted to the MMO throughout that licence period but it does not appear that Cefas explicitly advised on any of these updates. All Cefas advice provided for this licence can be found on the MMO Public Register.
 Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, a public authority may refuse a request where it does not hold the information requested. Following appropriate enquiries and searches of our records, Cefas has determined that it does not hold the information requested in Questions 1 and 2, and accordingly, the information is being withheld under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
@@ Line 83: / Line 100: @@
 Follow us @CefasGovUK : [[https://linktr.ee/cefasgovuk|LinkTree]]
+===== Request for Clarification =====
+While I accept that you do not hold the information I requested, I do not understand your reasons for this.
+Cefas's role in the development of Maintenance Dredging Protocols is explicitly defined in the 2007 Defra document [[https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121031094143mp_/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/documents/mdp-cap.pdf|Maintenance Dredging and The Habitats Regulations 1994 - A Conservation Assessment Protocol for England]].
+When I communicated with the Marine Management Organisation over Maintenance Dredging Protocols, I have been told that the MMO have no role in the oversight of dredging operations themselves as they are not the competent authority and so do not regulate any environmental impacts of the dredging operations. The MMO have stated however, they are the competent authority for the disposal of dredged material and so do advise / regulate environmental impacts of the disposal of dredged material.
+So I am now concerned that either I have asked the wrong questions or that the competent authorities (Statutory Harbour Authorities) are not seeking Cefas advice for dredging operations in the same way that the MMO are for disposal of dredged material.
+I assume that I need to contact Defra to clarify how dredging operations are being overseen.
+===== Clarification =====
+For the purposes of your Environmental Information Regulations (2004) request, we can confirm the following:
+We have reviewed the link you provided and do not agree that it designates Cefas as having an explicit role in reviewing Maintenance Dredging Protocols. The Marine and Fisheries Agency was a regulatory agency that preceded the MMO, and Cefas was never part of this agency.
+Regarding your concern that "competent authorities (Statutory Harbour Authorities) are not seeking Cefas advice for dredging operations" we reiterate that there is no such requirement for this consultation, and no agreement or arrangement exists - or (to our knowledge) has ever existed - to enable this, outside of routine Marine Licensing advice coordinated through the MMO (and its predecessors).
+We trust that this response, together with our comprehensive response to the duplicate request submitted directly to our Senior Advisor, clarifies Cefas' position regarding the issues raised.
 ====== Other Pages That Link To This Page ======
 {{backlinks>.}}