Differences

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

--- 26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon [2026/04/30 17:11] – nefcadmin
+++ 26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon [2026/04/30 20:48] (current) – [Statement of Truth] nefcadmin
@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
          - 10 surface sediment samples taken upstream in December 2018 showed one exceedance each of AL2 for PCB, mercury and zinc, and BDE209 far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to 912 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 47.5 g/kg) [**CB/A448**].
          - For Low Molecular Weight (‘LMW’) PAHs, only one sample out of a total of 57 samples was below the AL1 “other assessment criteria”, and only four of the 57 samples were below the AL2 “other assessment criteria”, meaning the vast majority exceeded the AL2 “other assessment criteria” [**CB/A446-450**].
+      - In the year 9 results (2024) of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic environment of the Harbour, taken in 2024:
+         - levels of metals were in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 [**CB/A460**];
+         - levels of LMW  PAHs in excess of the  AL2 “other assessment  criteria”  (up  to 4820 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 3160g/kg) [**CB/A460-466**];
+         - levels of PBDEs, BDE209, BDE99 and BDE100 far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria”: BDE209 up to 337 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of  47.5 g/kg;  BDE99  up  to  6g/kg  as  compared  to  the  AL2  threshold  of 1.0 g/kg; BDE100 up to 1.27g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 1g/kg [**CB/A460-466**].
+   * 41. For  reasons  that  are  unclear,  while  these  exceedances  would  ordinarily  render  the material unsafe  for disposal at  sea  if  dredged  from any  other  river in England, the MMO has permitted the material to be disposed at Tees Bay A because the material is taken from a river with historically and consistently high levels of pollution.
+==== Representations regarding the Application ====
+   * 42. On 6 August 2025, I submitted objections to the Application on behalf of the NEMRG, including  a  cover  note  [**SB/B575**],  a  representation  [**SB/B601**]  and  supporting evidence [**SB/577-600**]. Amongst other concerns, I highlighted the following issues:
+      - More frequent sampling is required;
+      - Current and past sampling is insufficient (the sediment quality analyses are insufficient and treat the samples as being homogenous and coming from a river with predictable sediment quality);
+      - Proposed sampling fails to satisfy OSPAR guidelines;
+      - A  precautionary  approach  should  be  adopted,  particularly  because  of crustacean die-offs and seal pup mortality;
+      - The  method  of  dredging  is  inappropriate  in  the  Tees  Estuary  (using  a trailing  suction  hopper  dredger  (“**TSHD**”)  and  allowing  overspill)  and  is dangerously outdated, with no monitoring during dredging or any annual calendar of ecological sensitivity; and
+      - Alternatives  for  the  disposal  of  dredged  material  should  be  assessed. [**CB/A550-574; A601-699**].
+   * 43. My concerns about inadequate sampling arose from the fact that only a small number of samples have been undertaken in the past relative to the size of the contaminated area from which this material is dredged.
+   * 44. Concerns  that  the  2025  licence  would  not  improve  on  this  low  level  of  historical sampling were raised by the sample plan advice for mid-licence sampling in relation to the  2015-2025  licence  (L/2015/00427/7),  which  again  required  limited  sampling despite suggesting the sampling plan was ‘in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines for  the  Management  of  Dredged  Material’  (the  **“OSPAR  Guidelines**)  [**CB/A258-246**].
+   * 45. Although a second letter from the MMO to the IP about mid licence sediment sampling under the 2015 licence stated that “MMO remind the applicant that new sampling will be required for any future Marine Licence applications” [**CB/A342-343**], upon calling and emailing the MMO, I learnt that no more samples would be taken, as the samples from October 2024 were considered sufficient to inform their recommendations for the licence [**SB/B548-549**].
+   * 46. Considering  the  industrialized  nature  of  the  Tees  for  over  a  century,  it  is  widely accepted, including by the MMO and the IP, that there are a range of contaminants in the benthic environment, sometimes at levels that are clearly harmful to the marine environment [**CB/A383-389; SB/B544; SB/B713; SB/B664-673**]. For example, I exhibit a map showing the location of harmful contaminants (Low Molecular Weight (LMW)  Poly  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons  (PAHs))  at  levels  that  should  not  ordinarily  be disposed of at sea, based on CEFAS’ interpretation of the IP’s 2024 sampling under the 2015 licence [SG1/5; **CB/A122**]. The map shows that sediment removed from 29 of the 31 sampled locations would ordinarily be considered unsafe for disposal at sea.
+   * 47. It is also clear that there is a lack of homogeneity in the benthic environment, not least since  six  areas  are  excluded  from  the  disposal  licence  due  to  contamination [**CB/A387-388; SB/B544; CB/A75-77; SB/B664-673**].
+   * 48. Moreover, there is both long-standing and recent evidence that PCB contamination of the food chain is contributing to the high and unsustainable levels of Tees seal pup mortality  (PCBs  bioaccumulate  higher  up  the  food  chain,  posing  greater  risks  to mammals at the top of the food chain, such as seals, cetaceans, and humans). It is likely that dredging and/or disposal of dredged material is contributing to the high level of PCBs in seals. I referenced evidence relating to seal pup mortality in my consultation responses [**SB/B553; SB/B565-566**]. The evidence, which I linked in footnotes to my consultation responses, is exhibited at **[CB/A164-179; CB/A277-298]**
+   * 49. I have conducted a detailed analysis of the spatial resolution of sampling proposed in the 2024 sampling plan **[**SG1/6,** CB/A123]**. On the basis of that analysis:
+      - It appears that the MMO has required only 20 samples to be produced from the industrialized river channel (Chart Sectors 1–9), which covers 10 to 12 kilometers of river; and
+      - In specific instances, such as Chart Sector 4 and Chart Sector 5, the plan relies on a single sample to verify over a kilometer of riverbed.
+   * 50. Although the MMO claims to apply OSPAR Guidelines on sediment sampling, it appears that the samples required from the IP by the MMO were dramatically less than what is required by the OSPAR Guidelines [**SB/C166-169**]. In particular, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of those Guidelines require samples to take account not only of the volume of material to be dredged (by reference to the ‘volumetric table’) but also of the area to be dredged (by reference to the ‘spatial table’ at para.5.3). The MMO’s sampling plan from  2024  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  for  the  Licence  appears  to  have  only considered the volume of the material to be dredged, and did not consider the spatial table at all.
+   * 51. The Licenced Dredging Area is 12,104,900m2 (see para.21 above). Applying the spatial table to this area, I calculate that the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is 611, almost twenty times the number required by the MMO. Even if the OSPAR Guidelines are applied only to the approximately 50% of the Harbour that has historically been dredged (c. 6,300,000m2) (para.22 above), the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is still 320, more than 10 times the number required by the MMO.
+   * 52. The  reason  the  OSPAR  Guidelines  require  consideration  of  a  spatial  approach, alongside  a  volumetric  approach  is  to  ensure  that  horizontally  and  vertically heterogeneous  benthic  environments  are  properly  sampled.  A purely  volume-based approach assumes the riverbed is a homogeneous tank, ignoring the spatial variance of sediment deposition. It results in a low-level sampling resolution (approx. 1 sample per km), which lacks the statistical power to detect localized contamination hotspots. In a highly heterogenous riverbed like the Tees, that approach gives rise to a very real risk  that  highly  contaminated  sediment  is  missed  because  the  sampling  grid  is  too coarse  to  detect  the  hazards.  Consequently,  the safety  data  derived  from  this plan represents a 'false negative': it does not prove the river is safe; it proves only that the sampling grid was too coarse to detect the hazards. Adopting such a coarse sampling grid is therefore providential rather than precautionary. This was the point I made on behalf of NEMRG in our consultation response.
+   * 53. Even using a volume-based approach only, the number of samples required by the MMO  appears  to  be  less  than  required  by  the  application  of  the  volume  table  at para.5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines. Below is a table showing the samples required using the spatial table and the volume table at para.5.3  of the OSPAR Guidelines for the whole licenced area or the area that has historically been dredged.
-b.  In the year 9 results (2024) of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic
+^Area (m2)^Volume (m3)^Samples Required using Spatial Approach^Samples Required using Volume Approach^
+|Licenced Area|12,104,900|2,400,000|611|35|
+|Estimated Area Dredged Historically|6,300,000|2,400,000|320|35|
-environment of the Harbour, taken in 2024:
+   * The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number of samples should have been 35, not 31.
+   * 54. In practice, 31 samples for the total licenced area equates to 1 sample for every 55 football pitches of the licensed area (or 1 sample for every 29 football pitches of the estimated area historically dredged).
+   * 55. The fact that sampling has been undertaken for many years is no answer to the under-sampling taking place. First, the OSPAR Guidelines are clear that sampling should be repeated every three years. While in some circumstances, this can extend to 5 years, that is only if contamination is below AL1 and there are no material changes to the sediment (e.g dredging) (para.5.5 [**CB/A387-388**]). Neither condition applies to the Tees. In addition, it is clear that the Tees is a dynamic river, as demonstrated by the fact that mid-licence sampling in 2019 at Billingham’s Reach returned PCBs at levels above AL2 [**CB/A387-388**]. While subsequent sampling returned samples below AL2, this demonstrates only that the contaminated sediment likely moved elsewhere in the river.
+   * 56. This  under-sampling  is  particularly  problematic  in  relation  to  areas  that  are  being dredged  in  close  proximity  to  excluded  areas,  which  are  known  to  contain contaminants at levels prohibited from disposal at sea.
+   * 57. There are several mechanisms by which contaminated material is likely to be carried from exclusion zones into the dredged channels:
+      - ‘Sloughing’  -  the  local  physical  collapse  of  the  estuary  bed  at  the  edge  of  an exclusion zone resulting in contaminated material falling or sliding into the dredged channel. This occurs as a result of gravity and the slope created by dredging an area adjacent to the exclusion zones.
+      - ‘Scour’ - tidal currents will result in the "stripping" of the surface of the riverbed from the exclusion zone, with the resuspended sediment settling in deeper areas within the dredged river.
+      - Propeller wash due to ship manoeuvres close to an excluded zone will result in violent  resuspension  of  excluded  sediment,  which  drifts  into  the  river  and  is deposited in the dredged channel.
+      - Under  certain  circumstances  a  high-concentration  mud-like  suspension  can  be formed on the riverbed, which, if this happens in an exclusion zone, will flow under, gravity carrying contamination into the river channel.
+==== Follow-up correspondence with the MMO ====
+   * 58. On 5 November 2025, I contacted the MMO to request coordinates of areas excluded from dredging and also stated that I believed the licence was in breach of the OSPAR Convention, as it did not consider the inadvertent release of fine particles, which are more contaminated than bulk sediment. I did not receive any response from the MMO [**SB/B729-750**]. On 30 November 2025, I followed up with the MMO and asked for the  missing  information  for  the  mid-licence  sampling  [**CB/A323-329**].  On  1 December 2025, the MMO informed me that my query had been sent to the licence holder [**CB/A322-329**]. I responded the same day and stated that the MMO should be able to provide me with a correct version of "MMO_Results_Template MAR00179 V3.xlsm",  which  was  quoted  in  licence  application  MLA/2025/00263  and  is  on  the Public Register as a return to variation 4 of L/2015/00427 [**CB/A323**]. I noted that the version in the Public Register is missing all coordinates and instead has locations on  land.  Following  pre-action  correspondence,  the  MMO  has  sent  a  map  showing approximate locations of the excluded areas [**SB/C799**].
+   * 59. On 5 December 2025, I sent an information request to PD Teesport Limited under the Environmental  Information  Regulation  2004  requesting  information  about  their dredging and assessment of alternatives [**CB/A140-141]. ** I understand a response will be provided on 5 February 2026 [**CB/A150-152**].
+==== Aarhus Convention Claim  ====
+   * 60. I am advised that this is an Aarhus Convention claim as defined at CPR 46.24(2)(a) as it  is  brought  by  a  member  of the  public  (construed  in  accordance  with  the  Aarhus Convention) by way of judicial review, which challenges the legality of the decision, which  is  within  the  scope  of  9(3)  of  the  Aarhus  Convention,  there  being  a  wide definition of the environment at Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention.
+   * 61. I understand that the Court rules concerning costs protection in Aarhus Convention claims require me to file a statement of my financial resources (verified by a statement of  truth)  which  provides  details  of  (i)  my  significant  assets,  liabilities,  income  and expenditure  and  (ii)  the  aggregate  amount  of  financial  support  which  has  been provided and which is likely to be provided to me by any other person.
+   * 62. I therefore exhibit a schedule of my financial resources pursuant to CPR 46.25(1)(b) verified by a statement of truth.  I am advised that following the judgment of Mr Justice Dove in R (RSPB, FoE and ClientEarth) v SSJ and LC [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), the statement of financial resources is to be regarded as a confidential document.
-i.  levels of metals were in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 [**CB/A460**];
+=== Costs estimate ====
+   * 63. I have been advised by my solicitors that they estimate my own costs of this judicial review to be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT if the case progresses in a straightforward manner. Counsel’s fees will be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT. There will also be court fees, including the fee for issue, which is £174, and a continuation fee of £874, and potentially printing costs in the region of £1,000 - £1,500 + VAT for the claim and trial bundle.
+   * 64.As to the Defendant’s costs, my solicitors have estimated an exposure to its costs of circa  £10,000  -  £25,000  if  the  case  progresses  in  a  straightforward  manner.    In addition, I understand that there is also a potential risk that I will be ordered to pay the costs of the Interested Party, which I am told can often exceed the Defendant’s claim for costs by a considerable margin.
+   * 65.I believe I can just about afford to bring these proceedings, as there has been some fund-raising  in  the  local  community  to  meet  the  costs.  I  have  also  set  up  a crowdfunding page on CrowdJustice which has, as at the date of this statement, raised £8,313.
-ii.  levels of LMW  PAHs in excess of the  AL2 “other assessment  criteria”  (up  to
+  * 66. However,  I  cannot  afford  exposure  to  the  Defendant  and  Interested  Party’s  costs beyond £5,000.  This means that if the Court does not grant me costs protection in this Aarhus Convention claim, these proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for me.
+  * 67. The order that I seek is pursuant to CPR 46.26(2)(a) i.e., that the Claimant’s liability for the Defendant and Interested Party’s costs is limited to £5,000. The liability of the Defendant  for  the  Claimant’s  costs  is  limited  to  £35,000  and  the  liability  of  the Interested Parties for the Claimant’s costs is limited to £35,000.
-g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 3160g/kg) [**CB/A460-466**];
-iii.  levels of PBDEs, BDE209, BDE99 and BDE100 far in excess of the AL2 “other
-assessment criteria”: BDE209 up to 337
-g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold
-of  47.5
-g/kg;  BDE99  up  to  6g/kg  as  compared  to  the  AL2  threshold  of
-.0
-g/kg; BDE100 up to 1.27g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 1g/kg
-[**CB/A460-466**].
-**A109**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED009.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-For  reasons  that  are  unclear,  while  these  exceedances  would  ordinarily  render  the
-material unsafe  for disposal at  sea  if  dredged  from any  other  river in England, the
-MMO has permitted the material to be disposed at Tees Bay A because the material is
-taken from a river with historically and consistently high levels of pollution.
-**Representations regarding the Application
-**42.
-On 6 August 2025, I submitted objections to the Application on behalf of the NEMRG,
-including  a  cover  note  [**SB/B575**],  a  representation  [**SB/B601**]  and  supporting
-evidence [**SB/577-600**]. Amongst other concerns, I highlighted the following issues:
-a.  More frequent sampling is required;
-b.  Current and past sampling is insufficient (the sediment quality analyses are
-insufficient and treat the samples as being homogenous and coming from
-a river with predictable sediment quality);
-c.  Proposed sampling fails to satisfy OSPAR guidelines;
-d.  A  precautionary  approach  should  be  adopted,  particularly  because  of
-crustacean die-offs and seal pup mortality;
-e.  The  method  of  dredging  is  inappropriate  in  the  Tees  Estuary  (using  a
-trailing  suction  hopper  dredger  (“**TSHD**”)  and  allowing  overspill)  and  is
-dangerously outdated, with no monitoring during dredging or any annual
-calendar of ecological sensitivity; and
-f.  Alternatives  for  the  disposal  of  dredged  material  should  be  assessed.
-[**CB/A550-574; A601-699**].
-.
-My concerns about inadequate sampling arose from the fact that only a small number
-of samples have been undertaken in the past relative to the size of the contaminated
-area from which this material is dredged.
-.
-Concerns  that  the  2025  licence  would  not  improve  on  this  low  level  of  historical
-sampling were raised by the sample plan advice for mid-licence sampling in relation to
-the  2015-2025  licence  (L/2015/00427/7),  which  again  required  limited  sampling
-despite suggesting the sampling plan was ‘in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines
-for  the  Management  of  Dredged  Material’  (the  **“OSPAR  Guidelines**)**  **[**CB/A258-\\
-**].
-.
-Although a second letter from the MMO to the IP about mid licence sediment sampling
-under the 2015 licence stated that “MMO remind the applicant that new sampling will
-be required for any future Marine Licence applications” [**CB/A342-343**], upon calling
-and emailing the MMO, I learnt that no more samples would be taken, as the samples
-from October 2024 were considered sufficient to inform their recommendations for the
-licence [**SB/B548-549**].
-**A110**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED010.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-Considering  the  industrialized  nature  of  the  Tees  for  over  a  century,  it  is  widely
-accepted, including by the MMO and the IP, that there are a range of contaminants in
-the benthic environment, sometimes at levels that are clearly harmful to the marine
-environment [**CB/A383-389; SB/B544; SB/B713; SB/B664-673**]. For example,
-I exhibit a map showing the location of harmful contaminants (Low Molecular Weight
-(LMW)  Poly  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons  (PAHs))  at  levels  that  should  not  ordinarily  be
-disposed of at sea, based on CEFAS’ interpretation of the IP’s 2024 sampling under
-the 2015 licence [SG1/5; **CB/A122**]. The map shows that sediment removed from 29
-of the 31 sampled locations would ordinarily be considered unsafe for disposal at sea.
-.
-It is also clear that there is a lack of homogeneity in the benthic environment, not least
-since  six  areas  are  excluded  from  the  disposal  licence  due  to  contamination
-[**CB/A387-388; SB/B544; CB/A75-77; SB/B664-673**].
-.
-Moreover, there is both long-standing and recent evidence that PCB contamination of
-the food chain is contributing to the high and unsustainable levels of Tees seal pup
-mortality  (PCBs  bioaccumulate  higher  up  the  food  chain,  posing  greater  risks  to
-mammals at the top of the food chain, such as seals, cetaceans, and humans). It is
-likely that dredging and/or disposal of dredged material is contributing to the high level
-of PCBs in seals. I referenced evidence relating to seal pup mortality in my consultation
-responses [**SB/B553; SB/B565-566**]. The evidence, which I linked in footnotes to
-my consultation responses, is exhibited at **[CB/A164-179; CB/A277-298]**
-.
-I have conducted a detailed analysis of the spatial resolution of sampling proposed in
-the 2024 sampling plan **[**SG1/6,** CB/A123]**. On the basis of that analysis:
-a.  It appears that the MMO has required only 20 samples to be produced from the
-industrialized river channel (Chart Sectors 1–9), which covers 10 to 12 kilometers
-of river; and
-b.  In specific instances, such as Chart Sector 4 and Chart Sector 5, the plan relies on
-a single sample to verify over a kilometer of riverbed.
-.
-Although the MMO claims to apply OSPAR Guidelines on sediment sampling, it appears
-that the samples required from the IP by the MMO were dramatically less than what
-is required by the OSPAR Guidelines [**SB/C166-169**]. In particular, paragraphs 5.1
-to 5.4 of those Guidelines require samples to take account not only of the volume of
-material to be dredged (by reference to the ‘volumetric table’) but also of the area to
-be dredged (by reference to the ‘spatial table’ at para.5.3). The MMO’s sampling plan
-from  2024  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  for  the  Licence  appears  to  have  only
-considered the volume of the material to be dredged, and did not consider the spatial
-table at all.
-** **
-**A111**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED011.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-The Licenced Dredging Area is 12,104,900m2 (see para.21 above). Applying the spatial
-table to this area, I calculate that the minimum number of samples required by the
-OSPAR Guidelines is 611, almost twenty times the number required by the MMO. Even
-if the OSPAR Guidelines are applied only to the approximately 50% of the Harbour
-that has historically been dredged (c. 6,300,000m2) (para.22 above), the minimum
-number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is still 320, more than 10 times
-the number required by the MMO.
-.
-The  reason  the  OSPAR  Guidelines  require  consideration  of  a  spatial  approach,
-alongside  a  volumetric  approach  is  to  ensure  that  horizontally  and  vertically
-heterogeneous  benthic  environments  are  properly  sampled.  A purely  volume-based
-approach assumes the riverbed is a homogeneous tank, ignoring the spatial variance
-of sediment deposition. It results in a low-level sampling resolution (approx. 1 sample
-per km), which lacks the statistical power to detect localized contamination hotspots.
-In a highly heterogenous riverbed like the Tees, that approach gives rise to a very real
-risk  that  highly  contaminated  sediment  is  missed  because  the  sampling  grid  is  too
-coarse  to  detect  the  hazards.  Consequently,  the safety  data  derived  from  this plan
-represents a 'false negative': it does not prove the river is safe; it proves only that the
-sampling grid was too coarse to detect the hazards. Adopting such a coarse sampling
-grid is therefore providential rather than precautionary. This was the point I made on
-behalf of NEMRG in our consultation response.
-.
-Even using a volume-based approach only, the number of samples required by the
-MMO  appears  to  be  less  than  required  by  the  application  of  the  volume  table  at
-para.5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines. Below is a table showing the samples required using
-the spatial table and the volume table at para.5.3  of the OSPAR Guidelines for the
-whole licenced area or the area that has historically been dredged.
-** **
-** **
-**Area (m2) **
-**Volume (m3) **
-**Samples Required **
-**using Spatial **
-**Approach **
-** **
-**Samples Required **
-**using Volume **
-**Approach  **
-** **
-**Licenced Area **
-** **
-,104,900
-,400,000
-**Estimated Area Dredged **
-**Historically  **
-** **
-,300,000
-,400,000
-The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number
-of samples should have been 35, not 31.
-**A112**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED012.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-In practice, 31 samples for the total licenced area equates to 1 sample for every 55
-football pitches of the licensed area (or 1 sample for every 29 football pitches of the
-estimated area historically dredged).
-.
-The fact that sampling has been undertaken for many years is no answer to the under-\\
-sampling taking place. First, the OSPAR Guidelines are clear that sampling should be
-repeated every three years. While in some circumstances, this can extend to 5 years,
-that is only if contamination is below AL1 and there are no material changes to the
-sediment (e.g dredging) (para.5.5 [**CB/A387-388**]). Neither condition applies to the
-Tees. In addition, it is clear that the Tees is a dynamic river, as demonstrated by the
-fact that mid-licence sampling in 2019 at Billingham’s Reach returned PCBs at levels
-above AL2 [**CB/A387-388**]. While subsequent sampling returned samples below AL2,
-this demonstrates only that the contaminated sediment likely moved elsewhere in the
-river.
-.
-This  under-sampling  is  particularly  problematic  in  relation  to  areas  that  are  being
-dredged  in  close  proximity  to  excluded  areas,  which  are  known  to  contain
-contaminants at levels prohibited from disposal at sea.
-.
-There are several mechanisms by which contaminated material is likely to be carried
-from exclusion zones into the dredged channels:
-i.
-‘Sloughing’  -  the  local  physical  collapse  of  the  estuary  bed  at  the  edge  of  an
-exclusion zone resulting in contaminated material falling or sliding into the dredged
-channel. This occurs as a result of gravity and the slope created by dredging an
-area adjacent to the exclusion zones.
-ii.
-‘Scour’ - tidal currents will result in the "stripping" of the surface of the riverbed
-from the exclusion zone, with the resuspended sediment settling in deeper areas
-within the dredged river.
-iii.
-Propeller wash due to ship manoeuvres close to an excluded zone will result in
-violent  resuspension  of  excluded  sediment,  which  drifts  into  the  river  and  is
-deposited in the dredged channel.
-iv.
-Under  certain  circumstances  a  high-concentration  mud-like  suspension  can  be
-formed on the riverbed, which, if this happens in an exclusion zone, will flow under,
-gravity carrying contamination into the river channel.
-**
-Follow-up correspondence with the MMO
-**
-.
-On 5 November 2025, I contacted the MMO to request coordinates of areas excluded
-from dredging and also stated that I believed the licence was in breach of the OSPAR
-Convention, as it did not consider the inadvertent release of fine particles, which are
-more contaminated than bulk sediment. I did not receive any response from the MMO
-[**SB/B729-750**]. On 30 November 2025, I followed up with the MMO and asked for
-**A113**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED013.png?892x1262|background image}}
-the  missing  information  for  the  mid-licence  sampling  [**CB/A323-329**].  On  1
-December 2025, the MMO informed me that my query had been sent to the licence
-holder [**CB/A322-329**]. I responded the same day and stated that the MMO should
-be able to provide me with a correct version of "MMO_Results_Template MAR00179
-V3.xlsm",  which  was  quoted  in  licence  application  MLA/2025/00263  and  is  on  the
-Public Register as a return to variation 4 of L/2015/00427 [**CB/A323**]. I noted that
-the version in the Public Register is missing all coordinates and instead has locations
-on  land.  Following  pre-action  correspondence,  the  MMO  has  sent  a  map  showing
-approximate locations of the excluded areas [**SB/C799**].
-** **
-** **
-.
-On 5 December 2025, I sent an information request to PD Teesport Limited under the
-Environmental  Information  Regulation  2004  requesting  information  about  their
-dredging and assessment of alternatives [**CB/A140-141]. ** I understand a response
-will be provided on 5 February 2026 [**CB/A150-152**].
-** **
-** **
-Aarhus Convention Claim
-.
-I am advised that this is an Aarhus Convention claim as defined at CPR 46.24(2)(a) as
-it  is  brought  by  a  member  of the  public  (construed  in  accordance  with  the  Aarhus
-Convention) by way of judicial review, which challenges the legality of the decision,
-which  is  within  the  scope  of  9(3)  of  the  Aarhus  Convention,  there  being  a  wide
-definition of the environment at Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention.
-.
-I understand that the Court rules concerning costs protection in Aarhus Convention
-claims require me to file a statement of my financial resources (verified by a statement
-of  truth)  which  provides  details  of  (i)  my  significant  assets,  liabilities,  income  and
-expenditure  and  (ii)  the  aggregate  amount  of  financial  support  which  has  been
-provided and which is likely to be provided to me by any other person.
-.
-I therefore exhibit a schedule of my financial resources pursuant to CPR 46.25(1)(b)
-verified by a statement of truth.  I am advised that following the judgment of Mr Justice
-Dove in
-R (RSPB, FoE and ClientEarth) v SSJ and LC [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), the
-statement of financial resources is to be regarded as a confidential document.
-Costs estimate
-.
-I have been advised by my solicitors that they estimate my own costs of this judicial
-review to be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT if the case progresses in a
-straightforward manner. Counsel’s fees will be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus
-VAT. There will also be court fees, including the fee for issue, which is £174, and a
-continuation fee of £874, and potentially printing costs in the region of £1,000 - £1,500
-+ VAT for the claim and trial bundle.
-**A114**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED014.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-As to the Defendant’s costs, my solicitors have estimated an exposure to its costs of\\
-circa  £10,000  -  £25,000  if  the  case  progresses  in  a  straightforward  manner.    In\\
-addition, I understand that there is also a potential risk that I will be ordered to pay\\
-the costs of the Interested Party, which I am told can often exceed the Defendant’s\\
-claim for costs by a considerable margin.
-.
-I believe I can just about afford to bring these proceedings, as there has been some\\
-fund-raising  in  the  local  community  to  meet  the  costs.  I  have  also  set  up  a\\
-crowdfunding page on CrowdJustice which has, as at the date of this statement, raised\\
-£8,313.
-.
-However,  I  cannot  afford  exposure  to  the  Defendant  and  Interested  Party’s  costs\\
-beyond £5,000.  This means that if the Court does not grant me costs protection in\\
-this Aarhus Convention claim, these proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for\\
-me.
-.
-The order that I seek is pursuant to CPR 46.26(2)(a) i.e., that the Claimant’s liability\\
-for the Defendant and Interested Party’s costs is limited to £5,000. The liability of the\\
-Defendant  for  the  Claimant’s  costs  is  limited  to  £35,000  and  the  liability  of  the\\
-Interested Parties for the Claimant’s costs is limited to £35,000.
-Statement of Truth
-.
+==== Statement of Truth ====
-I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true, or in context, true to the\\
+   * 68. I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true, or in context, true to the best  of  my  knowledge,  information,  and  belief.    I  understand  that  proceedings  for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
-best  of  my  knowledge,  information,  and  belief.    I  understand  that  proceedings  for\\
-contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made,\\
-a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest\\
-belief in its truth.
 ……………………………………..**
@@ Line 612: / Line 180: @@
 January 2026
-**A115**
+==== Supporting Documents ====
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED015.png?892x1262|background image}}
 **For: Claimant **
@@ Line 660: / Line 224: @@
 **%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%_ **
-This exhibit marked “SG1” is the exhibit referred to in the first witness statement of Dr Simon
+This exhibit marked “SG1” is the exhibit referred to in the first witness statement of Dr Simon Gibbon made on 13 January 2026.
-Gibbon made on 13 January 2026.
 Contents
-. CONFIDENTIAL  Exhibit  SG1/1  -  schedule  of  the  Claimant’s  financial  resources
+   - CONFIDENTIAL  Exhibit  SG1/1  -  schedule  of  the  Claimant’s  financial  resources pursuant to CPR 46.26…..………………………………………………………………………xx
+   - Exhibit SG1/2 - Map of dredging area as defined by Schedules 2 and 3 of the 2025 Licence ………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
+   - Exhibit SG1/3 - Map of Tees Bay A, SPA, and the Water Bodies with IP’s plume modelling (annotated version of fig.6.5 of the Baseline document)…………….xx
+   - Exhibit SG1/4 -  Map of CEFAS dispersal plume (Fig.7 of 09.22 report) annotated to showin location of SPA……………………………………………………………………….xx
+   - Exhibit SG1/5 - Map of Low Molecular Weight PAHs at levels of concern and levels prohibited from disposal based on 2024 sampling…………………………………….xx
+   - Exhibit  SG1/6  -  Claimant's  map  of  spatial  resolution  of  MMO's  2024  sampling plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
-pursuant to CPR 46.26…..………………………………………………………………………xx
+Statement of Truth
-. Exhibit SG1/2 - Map of dredging area as defined by Schedules 2 and 3 of the 2025
+I believe that the facts stated in this schedule of financial resources are true, or in context, true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
-Licence ………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
-. Exhibit SG1/3 - Map of Tees Bay A, SPA, and the Water Bodies with IP’s plume
-modelling (annotated version of fig.6.5 of the Baseline document)…………….xx
-. Exhibit SG1/4 -  Map of CEFAS dispersal plume (Fig.7 of 09.22 report) annotated
-to showin location of SPA……………………………………………………………………….xx
-. Exhibit SG1/5 - Map of Low Molecular Weight PAHs at levels of concern and levels
-prohibited from disposal based on 2024 sampling…………………………………….xx
-. Exhibit  SG1/6  -  Claimant's  map  of  spatial  resolution  of  MMO's  2024  sampling
-plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
-**A116**
-Statement of Truth
-I believe that the facts stated in this schedule of financial resources are true, or in context,
-true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.  I understand that proceedings for
-contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
-statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
 **……………………………
 DR SIMON GIBBON**
 January 2026
-**A118**