This is an old revision of the document!
For: Claimant
Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon
1st Witness statement
Exhibit: SG1
Made: 13 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
AC-2026-LON-
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review
BETWEEN:
R (DR SIMON GIBBON)
Claimant
-and-
MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION
Defendant
-and-
PD TEESPORT LIMITED
Interested Party
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR SIMON GIBBON
I, DR SIMON GIBBON, ……, a retired industrial chemist, say as follows:
* 1. I am the Claimant in these proceedings.
* 2. I make this witness statement to:
- set out my background and expertise;
- explain my involvement relating to the River Tees and my specific involvement in this licence application. As such, I make this statement on matters of fact (not as an expert witness);
- explain the permitted dredging area;
- set out my financial means in this Aarhus Convention claim pursuant to CPR 46.25(1)(b) at Exhibit SG1; and
- exhibit the relevant documents in this matter, namely the paginated bundle of documents relevant to the claim marked ‘Index to Claim Bundle’ which I will refer to as [CB/page number] and the exhibit SG1, which I will refer to as [SG1/exhibit number].
* 3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
* 4. This statement has been prepared by me with the assistance of my solicitors through a series of email exchanges and phone calls.
* 5. I confirm that I have read the Statement of Facts and Grounds in this case and agree its contents.
===== Professional expertise and experience =====
* 6. I am a retired industrial chemist with over 30 years of experience in colloid science,
surface chemistry, physical measurement, and polymeric materials. I hold
qualifications from Imperial College (BSc and PhD) and am a Visiting Professor in the
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Manchester (retired).
My career focused on the interaction between chemicals and particle surfaces, the
statistical validity of sampling heterogeneous materials, the modeling of complex
physical systems, and transport in polymeric materials.
7.
I have extensive career experience specializing for over 20 years in colloid science and
surface analysis at ICI and latterly in corrosion protection by polymeric materials at
AkzoNobel. My background involves the precise characterization of how chemicals are
adsorbed onto surfaces and absorbed into particles. This is the fundamental physical
mechanism governing how historical industrial toxins (such as PCBs) bind to river
sediment. I was also involved in the design of rigorous testing protocols for
heterogeneous industrial materials, determining the statistical validity of sampling
regimes specifically, calculating the minimum sample density required to detect 'out-
of-spec' anomalies (hotspots) within large-scale production outputs.
8.
During my career, I was a lead specialist in designing measurement protocols for
complex, heterogeneous materials. This required developing rigorous statistical
frameworks to ensure that small-scale samples accurately represented large-scale
industrial outputs.
9.
I am a former manager of a physical measurement group specializing in particle
analysis (sizing, surface area, and heterogeneity) and the development of
robotic/automated testing systems for scale-up operations. Dredging is fundamentally
a particle transport issue.
A103
3
Involvement with the River Tees and NEMRG
10.
Since 2022, I have applied my expertise specifically to sediment contamination issues
in the River Tees, collaborating with academic researchers to catalogue and scrutinize
the environmental risk assessments provided by the Marine Management Organisation
(MMO). In the last 3 years, I have conducted independent forensic reviews of a range
of South Tees planning applications and collaborated with scientists from Durham
University.
11.
I am an active member of the North East Marine Research Group (“NEMRG”), an
informal coalition comprising academics from Durham, Newcastle, and Hull
Universities, representatives from the North East Fishing Collective, the Fishmongers’
Company’s Fisheries Charitable Trust, and community organizations (including Climate
Action Stokesley & Villages and Reclaim Our Sea). NEMRG has been active since
approximately 2023.
12.
My work with NEMRG involves the examination of technical data to ensure regulatory
bodies are adequately addressing contamination issues. In 2023, I developed and
continue to enhance a bespoke web application that allows for the independent
analysis and comparison of sediment quality datasets provided in marine licence
applications.
13.
Between 2022 and 2023, I led a specialist working group (comprising two
environmental scientists and a forensic analyst) to conduct a detailed audit of the
documentation surrounding a widely-publicized crustacean die-off. We investigated
causal links, identified inconsistencies in agency reporting, and assessed risks
associated with capital dredging.
14.
As a part of NEMRG, I engaged with the Environment Agency regarding the extensive
contamination caused by the South Bank Quay dredge—an event now documented on
the Marine Case Management System’s Public Register.
15.
I have presented written and oral evidence and technical critiques to various regulatory
and governmental bodies, including the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA)
Committee (at the inquiry into the crustacean die-off), the Multi-Council Crustacean
Die-off Working Group (detailing the risks of Teesworks developments and specifically
highlighting the environmental dangers of trailing suction hopper dredgers operating
with overspill), the MMO (technical representations objecting to marine licence
applications), and a 2023 joint meeting with the MMO, Environment Agency, and
Natural England (to formally articulate our ongoing concerns regarding the
deteriorating state of the River Tees).
A104
4
16.
My overarching objective in relation to my activities outlined above is to try to address
contamination in the River Tees with a view to improving the state of the river and the
wider environment.
Permitted dredging area
17.
My application for judicial review relates to the MMO’s decision to grant a ten-year
marine licence for the disposal of dredged material. I understand dredging by PD
Teesport Limited (“the IP”) as the Port Authority is permitted by the Tees and
Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act does not, however, authorize the disposal
of dredged material at sea, which requires a marine licence. The 2025 licence
(L/2025/00366/1) was granted by the MMO on 5 November 2025 (“the Licence”)
[CB/A66-78].
18.
The Licence permits dredged material taken from areas defined in Schedule 2 and 3
of the licence to be disposed at Tees Bay A (as defined in Schedule 1) and excludes
dredged material from certain locations defined at 5.2.3 from being disposed at Tees
Bay A (“the Licenced Dredging Area”)[CB/A79-96].
19.
Also included with the licence online were ‘shape files’, which are files that can be read
by specific computer software to plot geographical locations. I used those shape files
to produce a map that can be found at SG1/2; [CB/A119]. I believe this shows the
same area as the IP’s map at p.11 of Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP)
Baseline Document (“the Baseline Document”) [CB/A382].
20.
I have checked the shape files against Schedules 2 and 3 of the licence, and I believe
they mirror one another.
21.
On the basis of the shape files and schedules 2 and 3, I therefore calculate that the
total area from which dredged material may be disposed at sea is 12,104,900m2.
22.
Based on the IP’s navigation channel documentation, I understand that approximately
6,300,000m2 or slightly over 50% of the total area from which dredged material can
be disposed at sea, has historically been dredged [CB/A265-271].
23.
Pursuant to section 5.2.3 of the licence, dredged material from certain areas must be
excluded from disposal at sea [CB/A75-76]. I asked for information about these
areas before the licence was granted, but responses from the MMO indicated that they
did not hold the information [CB/A322-329] (see para. 58 below). Following pre-
action correspondence, the MMO has sent a map showing approximate locations of
the excluded areas [SB/C799].
A105
5
Disposal area and the surrounding environment
24.
Included in the claim bundle is a map showing the disposal area, Tees Bay A, the
Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) boundary, and the
water bodies regulated under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive)
(England and Wales) Regulations 2017 [SB/C988-992].
25.
Also included in the claim bundle is a map showing the Greater North Sea area of the
Marine Strategy Area [SB/C891].
26.
The Licenced Dredging Area lies within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA.
According to Natural England:
The SPA comprises of a wide variety of habitats including: intertidal sand and
mudflats, rocky shore, saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, saline lagoons, sand
dunes and estuarine and coastal waters on and around the Tees estuary, which
has been considerably modified by human activities. These habitats provide
feeding and roosting opportunities for important number of waterbirds in
winter and during passage periods including in particular common redshank,
red knot and ruff, which occur in internationally important numbers. Freshwater
and brackish pools also support breeding avocet during summer.
The saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA
are of great importance to a diverse assemblage of bird species. Mudflats
support high densities of benthic invertebrates, including worms, molluscs and
crustaceans, which provide an important food resource for migrant and
overwintering SPA bird species. Areas of saltmarsh provide significant feeding
and roosting opportunities for many species of waterbird including common
redshank and red knot.
In summer, little tern breed on the sandy beaches within the site and feed out
at sea while the common tern, which breed at various locations, feed within
the River Tees and associated water bodies and within the wider estuary mouth
and bay. In late summer, Sandwich tern aggregate in important numbers at
Coatham Sands, Seal Sands, North Gare Sands/Seaton Snook and Bran Sands
when on passage. (p.5) [CB/A422]
27.
The SPA is designated for the following features:
• Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta - A132-A, b
• Common tern, Sterna hirundo - A193, b
• Knot, Calidris canutus - A143, nb
• Little tern, Sterna albifrons - A195, b
• Redshank, Tringa totanus - A162, nb
A106
6
• Ruff, Calidris pugnax - A151, nb
• Sandwich tern, Thalasseus sandvicensis, syn. Sterna sandvicensis -
A191, nb
• Waterbird assemblage
28.
The site is currently in unfavourable condition as a result of nutrients, namely nitrogen.
I understand that the SPA is not regularly tested for the presence of toxic chemicals,
but I note that in its consultation response on the IP’s application, Natural England
noted that the Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the SPA contains
a target to
“reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according
to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive,
avoiding deterioration from existing levels.” [SB/B713]
29.
The permitted dredging area also lies within the Tees Coastal Water Body and the
Tees Water Body.
30.
The Tees Coastal Water Body runs parallel to the coastline and is a coastal water body
with an area of 8,844 ha. It has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of specific
pollutants and fails to meet standards for some priority hazardous substances,
including mercury and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) [CB/A120].
31.
The ‘Tees Water Body’ is a transitional water body covering an area of 1,148ha. It
currently has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of numerous pollutants and
fails to meet standards required for priority hazardous substances such as benzo(g-h-
i)perylene, mercury, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and tributyltin
compounds. The reason for not achieving ‘good’ status is either due to industry, is
unknown, or cannot be attributed.[CB/A120]
32.
Also of relevance to this area is the UK Marine Strategy Part One (2019) [SB/C874].
Tees Bay A sits within the Greater North Sea area. The Strategy makes clear that:
a. Harbour seals in the Greater North Sea have not yet achieved Good
Environmental Status (“GES”) and there is a lack of certainty about the
causes of decline (pp 51-53);
b. Highly persistent legacy chemicals such as PCBs in marine sediments and
biota are the cause of the few failures to achieve GES in respect of the
‘contaminant’ descriptor, mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources
(pp 75 - 79).
33.
The UK Marine Strategy Part Three: 2025 UK programme of measures, confirms that
pollution and toxins, including the prevalence of pollutants (for example,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the
environment and cetaceans, are a threat to harbour seals (p.11), although the cause
of harbour seal decline is unknown (p.11) [SB/C931]. Furthermore, in relation to
A107
7
contaminants, failures to meet GES come from highly persistent legacy chemicals
mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources (2.12.1). It is recognised that:
“Actions to address the following would support the maintenance of GES
related to Contaminants (D8) and the further safeguarding of the UK marine
environment:
• legacy chemicals in sediment and biota
• new chemicals or groups of chemicals with the potential to adversely impact
sea life and human health that are continually being identified (for example,
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: PFAS) (para.2.12.1)” [SB/933].
IP’s application
34.
I first learnt that the IP had applied for the Licence on 7 July 2025 (“the Application”)
[CB/A344]. I contacted the MMO to point out that no documents were visible on the
MCMS Public Register. This was rectified on 9 July 2025.
35.
The Application included the IP’s Baseline Document [CB/A366-486]. The Baseline
Document includes plume modelling for Tees Bay A at Figures 6-3 and 6-7 (pages 33-
34).
36.
At SG1/3; [CB/A119] is a map showing the plume modelling overlaid on the map
showing the SPA boundary. It shows that the modelled plume from disposal at Tees
Bay A will reach very close to the SPA.
37.
The IP’s modelling does not appear to have been updated since first prepared for the
2006 Environmental Statement for the Northern Gateway Container Terminal
(para.6.1.4, Baseline document) [CB/A404]. From the description in the 2006 ES, it
appears that this modelling assumes only ‘calm (no wave) conditions’ (p.451) so does
not model for more dynamic sea conditions. It also appears to assume disposal in the
centre of the disposal quadrant only [CB/A182]. In fact, disposal will take place
throughout the entire quadrant depending on the month of the year (Fig 3-3, Baseline
document) [CB/A390]. As such, the IP’s model is not an exact description of the
effects and suffers from inherent uncertainty. On the basis of the modelling provided,
it is at least possible to say that there is a real risk that the plume would, at times,
reach into the SPA. Despite almost 20 years of disposal at Tees Bay A since the model
was first produced, it does not appear that there has been any real-life monitoring or
measurement of the plume to assess the model’s accuracy.
38.
However, in 2022, CEFAS, following a mass crustacean die-off event, shows the plume
from disposal at Tees Bay A entering the SPA and remaining suspended for at least 72
hours after disposal [CB/A203]. I exhibit at SG1/4 an annotated map showing the
CEFAS plume in comparison to the SPA [CB/A121].
A108
8
39.
It is clear from the mid-licence sediment analysis carried out by the IP in 2017/18 and
2024, and submitted by the IP in support of the application, that the plume contains
sediment with levels of contamination that would not ordinarily be safe for disposal at
sea.
40.
In accordance with OSPAR requirements, Cefas applies formal “action levels” (‘ALs’)
to certain pollutants and (since 2020) has applied de facto ALs known as “other
assessment criteria” for pollutants for which the AL levels are recommended for
revision and to pollutants without formal ALs. The IP’s mid-licence sediment analysis
shows:
a. In the year 3 (2018 and 2019) results:
i. 36 samples from the benthic environment of the River Tees, taken in 2019,
indicated that there were concentrations of metals, the majority of PAH
compounds, C-napthalenes, phenanthrene, and PCBs in excess of Cefas AL1,
and high concentrations of total hydrocarbons. In some samples, levels of
BDE209 were far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to
407
g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 47.5 g/kg) [CB/A446].
ii. 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.
iii. 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].
b. In the year 9 results (2024) of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic
environment of the Harbour, taken in 2024:
i. levels of metals were in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 [CB/A460];
ii. levels of LMW PAHs in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to
4820
g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 3160g/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 6g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of
1.0
g/kg; BDE100 up to 1.27g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 1g/kg
[CB/A460-466].
A109
9
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:
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].
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].
A110
10
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:
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.
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.
A111
11
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.
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
The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number
of samples should have been 35, not 31.
A112
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
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
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.
……………………………………..
DR SIMON GIBBON
13 January 2026
A115
15
For: Claimant
Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon
1st Witness statement
Exhibit: SG1
Made: 13 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
AC-2026-LON-
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review
BETWEEN:
DR SIMON GIBBON
Claimant
-and-
MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION
Defendant
-and-
PD TEESPORT LIMITED
Interested Party
_________________________________________
EXHIBIT SG1
_________________________________________
This exhibit marked “SG1” is the exhibit referred to in the first witness statement of Dr Simon
Gibbon made on 13 January 2026.
Contents
1. CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit SG1/1 - schedule of the Claimant’s financial resources
pursuant to CPR 46.26…..………………………………………………………………………xx
2. Exhibit SG1/2 - Map of dredging area as defined by Schedules 2 and 3 of the 2025
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
13 January 2026
A118**