Differences

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

--- mla-2025-00263 [2026/05/02 06:45] – [Additional Documents] nefcadmin
+++ mla-2025-00263 [2026/05/02 07:43] (current) – [Additional HRA Required as HRA within MDP was Insufficient] nefcadmin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===== MLA/2025/00263 Updated 22nd July 2025 =====
+===== Notes =====
+==== Too Few Sample ====
+Only 31 samples were taken for an area of over 12 million m<sup>2</sup>, even taking into account historical samples this does not provide sufficient information on the contamination within a highly heterogeneous river with the industrial history of the River Tees.  I do not believe it is compliant with the UK's obligations under the OSPAR Convention as it does not show correct application of OSPAR Guidelines.  The OSPAR Guidelines provide approach for both considering the spatial area that is being dredged and the volume of dredged material.  Rationally for a river such as the Tees with heterogeneous contamination the spatial guidance should have been used, instead the applicant used the volume guidance which is appropriate for a deep dredge in a small area (capital dredge).  This was the basis for the [[MMO Judicial Review Background|2025 Judicial Review]].
+==== Additional HRA Required as HRA within MDP was Insufficient ====
+At the same time as the granted licence was uploaded to [[https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk|Marine Case Management System]], a new HRA was uploaded - [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf|20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf]].  This was surprising both as it would presumably have been required for Natural England (and possible the Environment Agency) to make a proper assessment of the application and as such the HRA should have been included within the Maintenance Dredge Protocol, as the [[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f46f16ab602a88957eefa2/20260408_Ports_Sandbox_Top_Tips_v3_Final.pdf|MMO's Marine Licensing Top Tips]] - Ports Sandbox April 2026 makes clear on page 16 "For those harbour authorities that have an up-to-date Maintenance Dredge Baseline Report the HRA will be included in that report."
+It appears that the HRA was produced in response to Natural England's statement that "Likely significant effect, appropriate assessment required." [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Consultations/517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO.pdf|517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO.pdf]]
+The HRA used [[https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/ConservationAdvice.aspx?SiteCode=UK9006061&SiteName=Tees&SiteNameDisplay=Teesmouth%20and%20Cleveland%20Coast%20SPA&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=&HasCA=1&NumMarineSeasonality=7&SiteNameDisplay=Teesmouth%20and%20Cleveland%20Coast%20SPA|Natural England Conservation Advice for Protected Sites - Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA]].  The HRA accepted a pathway for impact on the SPA, it only considered impacts from disposal not dredging, and so stated that impact was minimal either alone or in combination, stating that combination effects had already been considered in the other applications.  Equally Natural England only considered disposal as "We recognise that the licence application is for dredge disposal only as the Port has the powers to dredge under the Teesport Harbour Revision Order 2008. Therefore, our advice is primarily focussed on disposal activities."
+==== No Consideration of Impact of Dredging Operations ====
+PD Teessport when asked under [[260303PD Teesport EIR Request - Maintenance Dredging|EIR]] for information about the assessments of the dredging operations, they refer to the MDP.
+[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Consultations/517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO.pdf|Natural England]] also explain the purpose of the MDP in considerable detail and state "We encourage ports to discuss and review maintenance dredge protocols and baseline documents with us under Discretionary Advice Service contracts to ensure they are complete, use best available evidence and are fit-for-purpose."
+So it would appear that there is no assessment of the impact of the dredging operations as opposed to disposal and that Natural England do not feel the MDP is of sufficient standard.
+===== MLA/2025/00263 Updated 2nd May 2026 =====
 Initial Application - Submitted 27-May-2025
@@ Line 64: / Line 85: @@
 |[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/MLA2015000886_R11.1 Decision Letter.pdf|MLA2015000886_R11.1 Decision Letter.pdf]]|211 KB|28-Apr-2025|
 |[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/Public Representation 2.pdf|Public Representation 2.pdf]]|80 KB|05-Nov-2025|
-|[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf|Additional Documents/20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf]]|784 KB|05-Nov-2025|
+|[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf|20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf]]|784 KB|05-Nov-2025|
 |[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/MMO Boundaries - Areas excluded from Disposal at Sea.pdf|MMO Boundaries - Areas excluded from Disposal at Sea.pdf]]|1 MB|08-Jan-2026|
 |[[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/MMO Boundaries  Coordinates of the areas excluded from disposal at sea.pdf|MMO Boundaries Coordinates of the areas excluded from disposal at sea.pdf]]|172 KB|15-Jan-2026|