North East File Collection - NEFC

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
5th December 2025

===== Request =====

GOODENOUGH RING SOLICITORS

Data Protection Officer, PD Ports, 17-27 Queen’s Square, Middlesborough, TS2 1AH 

By email

Our ref: GIB00001 

5 December 2025 

Dear Sir or Madam,  

**Request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004  **

   - We write on behalf of our client, Dr Simon Gibbon. 
   - PD Teesport Limited (“**PDTL**”) is the statutory harbour authority for the Port of Tees and Hartlepool, which includes a 12-mile stretch of the River Tees, the Port of Hartlepool, and part of the North Sea (the “**Harbour**”). PDTL is a subsidiary of PD Ports. As the harbour authority, PDTL owes specific duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.  
   - We request the following information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“**EIR**”): 
      - Documents evidencing PDTL’s consideration of and compliance with section 48A of the Harbours Act 1964 and Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 when designing, carrying out and/or undertaking dredging in the Harbour pursuant to its statutory authority since 1 January 2021. 
      - Documents evidencing any assessment, since 1 January 2021, of the environmental impact of the dredging of the Harbour (not the disposal of dredged material), including in relation to:  
         - the water bodies regulated under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,  
         - the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site, and  
         - the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI. 
      - Documents evidencing PDTL’s consideration of alternative methods of dredging to Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers (TSHD) and evidencing the reasons why those alternatives have not been adopted. 
      - Any information which explains how dredging methods have changed since 2005 and why TSHD has been selected.  
      - Any maintenance dredging method statement made since 2005 other than the 2015 and 2025 statements made public through the respective licence applications.  
   - In responding to this request, please ensure that you apply the presumption in favour of disclosure (regulation 12(2) EIR). 
   - Furthermore, as you are no doubt aware, regulation 12(9) of the EIR prevents reliance on the exceptions to disclosure enshrined in regulations 12(5)(d) to (g) where the information requested relates to information on emissions. 
   - Please confirm safe receipt of this letter and respond as soon as possible and in any event within the 20 working day time limit.
Yours faithfully,  

**Goodenough Ring Solicitors **

===== Response =====

Goodenough Ring Solicitors, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Ave, London, EC4Y 0HA

4 February 2026 

By e-mail only

==== Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004: Request for information  ====

We write further to your letter to PD Teesport Limited (“**we**”, “**us**” or “**PD Teesport**”) dated 5 December 2025 in which you requested various items/categories of information, as follows (your “**Request**”) on behalf of your client, Dr Simon Gibbon:
   - //Documents evidencing PDTL’s consideration of and compliance with section 48A of the Harbours Act 1964 and Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 when designing, carrying out and/or undertaking dredging in the Harbour pursuant to its statutory authority since 1 January 2021.//
   - //Documents evidencing any assessment, since 1 January 2021, of the environmental impact of the dredging of the Harbour (not the disposal of dredged material), including in relation to://
      - //the water bodies regulated under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017, //
      - //the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site, and //
      - //the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI.//
   - //Documents evidencing PDTL’s consideration of alternative methods of dredging to Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers (TSHD) and evidencing the reasons why those alternatives have not been adopted.//
   - //Any information which explains how dredging methods have changed since 2005 and why TSHD has been selected. //
   - //Any maintenance dredging method statement made since 2005 other than the 2015 and 2025 statements made public through the respective licence applications. //

==== Timing ====

In our letter to you dated 22 December 2025, we explained that your Request is varied and broad, with requested categories of records spanning lengthy time periods and that this would require searching through many years of records for requested information. On the basis of the volume and complexity involved in responding to your Request, we also confirmed that, as a result and as permitted by EIR, the deadline for responding to your Request was extended to 5 February 2026. 

==== Our Response ====

We can now provide our response to your Request and confirm that PD Teesport has undertaken required searches for any relevant records of information it may hold responsive to your Request, in line with its obligations under EIR.

We can confirm that we undertook searches against key terms mentioned by or relevant to your Request and this resulted in 224,804 potentially responsive records. We undertook sampling checks of the documents responsive to different search terms to confirm where responsive information was not relevant to your Request. Using combined search terms and sampling, we were then better able to better target our searches, using our knowledge of relevant records, systems, practices and the roles of relevant individuals, to more accurately identify responsive information and records. 

Accordingly, we enclose with this letter copies of the requested information held by us, subject to applicable exceptions, as follows. 

==== Exceptions ====

//Personal data – Regulation 13 EIR//

You will note that redactions have been applied to the information that has been disclosed to you. This is because some of the information responsive to your Request was excepted from disclosure under Regulation 13 on the basis that it comprises personal data, disclosure of which would “place PD Teesport in breach of at least one of the principles set out in the data protection laws, namely that “Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject” (Article 5(1)(e) UK GDPR)”. 

PD Teesport considered the potential lawful bases available to it for disclosure of the affected personal data to you. The individuals identified in this information have not consented to the disclosure of their personal data in this manner, and so the only potential lawful basis under the data protection laws for making the disclosure would be that the processing is necessary for legitimate interests pursued by PD Teesport or a third party, in making the requested disclosure under EIR (including trying to assist you under EIR and being transparent about PD Teesport’s compliance with its obligations). However, the lawful basis would only apply to the extent that disclosure of the relevant information under EIR would benecessaryfor the identified legitimate interests, and the legitimate interests in disclosure would not be outweighed by the privacy rights and interests of affected individuals.

Having considered the potential disclosure of affected details to the extent it relates to junior members of staff, external individuals or is non-public information about more senior staff, we concluded that disclosure of those details is not necessary for the legitimate interests identified by PD Teesport. 

They would not add to your understanding of the issues mentioned in your Request. Employees also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their work life and may suffer distress or upset if their details were to be disclosed publicly in response to the Request. As such, disclosure of this information is not necessary for legitimate interests and, in any case, such interests would be outweighed by the harm or distress caused to the relevant individuals due to disclosure of their personal data to you. Therefore, we do not consider that the lawful basis of legitimate interests is available to us and disclosure would accordingly breach the data protection principles, meaning that the exception under Regulation 13 applies. 

However, you will see that public function/official related personal data relating to senior members of staff or individuals in public roles at PD Teesport was disclosed wherever possible. 

==== Your right of complaint ====

If you have any concerns about this response, or any complaints about the handling of your Request to date, we offer an internal review (complaints) procedure. 

If you wish to use our internal review procedure, please contact Richard Ellison at [[mailto:dpo@pdports.co.uk|dpo@pdports.co.uk.]] In the internal review procedure, your Request and our decision will be reviewed by a member of our organisation who had no input in the original decision. We will aim to conclude our internal review process within 20 working days of receiving your complaint. We will inform you if we consider that this timescale is unlikely to be complied with and will inform you of a likely response date.

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can raise a concern with the Information Commission. The contact details are:

Information Commission, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF Tel: 0303 123 1113 Website:[[http://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/J_U1CK1DZsqLj4YuvNTgq| http:%%//%%ico.org.uk ]] 

Yours sincerely

For and on behalf of
**PD Teesport Limited

Data Protection Officer