North East File Collection - NEFC

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon
26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon [2026/04/30 20:17] – nefcadmin26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon [2026/04/30 20:48] (current) – [Statement of Truth] nefcadmin
Line 145: Line 145:
 ^Area (m2)^Volume (m3)^Samples Required using Spatial Approach^Samples Required using Volume Approach^ ^Area (m2)^Volume (m3)^Samples Required using Spatial Approach^Samples Required using Volume Approach^
 |Licenced Area|12,104,900|2,400,000|611|35| |Licenced Area|12,104,900|2,400,000|611|35|
-|Estimated Area Dredged Historically|6,300,0002,400,000|320|35|+|Estimated Area Dredged Historically|6,300,000|2,400,000|320|35|
  
-The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number  +   * The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number of samples should have been 35, not 31.   
-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. 
  
-**A112**+=== 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. 
 +  * 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.
  
 +==== Statement of Truth ====
  
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED012.png?892x1262|background image}} +   * 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.
-  +
- +
-12  +
- +
-  +
- +
-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:  +
- +
-  +
- +
-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  +
-**  +
-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  +
- +
-**A113** +
- +
- +
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED013.png?892x1262|background image}} +
-  +
- +
-13  +
- +
-  +
- +
-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.  +
-  +
- +
-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.  +
-  +
- +
-**A114** +
- +
- +
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED014.png?892x1262|background image}} +
-14  +
- +
-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. +
- +
-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. +
- +
-Statement of Truth  +
- +
-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.+
  
 ……………………………………..**  ……………………………………..** 
Line 360: Line 180:
 13 January 2026  13 January 2026 
  
-**A115** +==== Supporting Documents ====
- +
- +
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED015.png?892x1262|background image}} +
-15 +
  
 **For: Claimant ** **For: Claimant **
Line 408: 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  Contents 
  
-1. 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 
  
-2. 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  +
- +
-3. 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  +
- +
-4. Exhibit SG1/4 -  Map of CEFAS dispersal plume (Fig.7 of 09.22 report) annotated +
- +
-to showin location of SPA……………………………………………………………………….xx  +
- +
-5. Exhibit SG1/5 - Map of Low Molecular Weight PAHs at levels of concern and levels +
- +
-prohibited from disposal based on 2024 sampling…………………………………….xx  +
- +
-6. 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**  DR SIMON GIBBON** 
 13 January 2026  13 January 2026 
- 
-**A118** 
- 
  
26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon.1777580226.txt.gz · Last modified: by nefcadmin