Differences

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

--- 251215follow-up_to_pre-action_letter [2026/04/30 06:51] – created nefcadmin
+++ 251215follow-up_to_pre-action_letter [2026/04/30 08:45] (current) – nefcadmin
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 We write further to our pre-action protocol letter of 4 December 2025.
-In relation to ground 4, we have become aware of the Habitats Regulations Assessment carried out by the MMO in relation to the proposed licence. To be clear, that document does not, in our view, constitute a lawful appropriate assessment for the following reasons:
+In relation to ground 4, we have become aware of the [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Additional Documents/20250626_MLA202500263_HRA.pdf|Habitats Regulations Assessment]] carried out by the MMO in relation to the proposed licence. To be clear, that document does not, in our view, constitute a lawful appropriate assessment for the following reasons:
   * The HRA adopts the Baseline Document’s erroneous position that the plume from Tees Bay A does not enter (and/or does not risk entering) the SPA and so has not carried out any assessment of the potential impacts of such contamination on the SPA;
   * The HRA, when considering whether the licenced activities would have an adverse impact on the SPA,  fails to compare the “do something” scenario with the “do nothing” scenario. Instead, the HRA follows the erroneous position in the baseline document and compares the “do something” scenario (grant the licence) with the existing scenario (where the same licensed activity is taking place under a licence that is due to expire).