This is an old revision of the document!
Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Ave, London, EC4Y 0HA, 0208 050 8601, www.grsolicitors.co.uk
Marine Management Organisation, Tyneside House, Skinnerburn Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR
By email to: <@marinemanagement.org.uk>; marine.consents@marinemanagement.org.uk; info@marinemanagement.org.uk
Cc: c@pdports.co.uk; <@pdports.co.uk>; <@pdports.co.uk>
Our ref: GIB00001, Your ref: MLA/2025/00263
15 December 2025
FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION
JUDICIAL REVIEW PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER
Dear Sir or Madam,
Follow-up to pre-action letter (Ref. MLA/2025/00263)
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:
- 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).
We also alert the MMO to a further potential ground of claim, namely that the MMO failed to comply with its obligations under the Marine Works (Environment Impact Assessment Regulations 2007 (‘2007 Regulations’) by failing to consider whether an environmental impact assessment was required. In this respect we note that paragraph 76 of Schedule A2 to the 2007 Regulations lists “sludge deposition sites” as a Schedule A2 project. By regulation 8 of the 2007 Regulations, an environmental impact assessment must be produced for regulated activity that is to be carried out in the course of Schedule A2 project if the appropriate authority concludes that the project in question is likely, because of its size, nature or location, to have significant effects on the environment. There is no evidence that the MMO considered whether the licensed activity required an EIA. Indeed, there is evidence that the MMO unlawfully concluded that the 2007 Regulations did not apply to the licensed activity at all.
We invite the MMO to respond to this additional point within the timeframe for the existing PAP response. If it is not able to do so, we invite the MMO to send a separate response to this additional potential ground.
Subject to considering any response that he may receive by 18 December, the Claimant intends to issue proceedings by the end of 19 December 2025.
Yours faithfully,
Goodenough Ring Solicitors