Differences

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

--- 260308natural_england_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging [2026/08/02 15:05] – [5. Cumulative Impacts] nefcadmin
+++ 260308natural_england_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging [2026/09/16 21:20] (current) – nefcadmin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+===== 260308Natural England EIR Request - Tees Maintenance Dredging =====
+===== Summary =====
+This EIR was to discover whether the appropriate environmental assessments of the dredging operations had involved consulations with Natural England.
+No evidence of consultations has been reported.
+  - PD Ports has not consulted NE on the impacts of the operations of dredging on protected sites etc.
+  - PD Ports have not consulted NE on TSHD overflow and contaminant recirculation.  However, NE in Reference A made relevant recommendations.
+  - PD Ports have not consulted NE on TSHD dredging operation within the estuary on foraging.
+  - Water framework directive I should approach the Environment Agency.
+  - NE advised MMO to ensure cumulative impacts of all dredging within the River Tees were considered, I can only find evidence with respect to the disposal operation not the dredging operations.
+  - NE not consulted on site specific contaminants.
+Relevant recommendations made in [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|Reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]]:
+**//Likely significant effect, appropriate assessment required//**
+//Natural England's advice is that this proposed development may contain (or require) measures intended to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects on a European Site, which cannot be taken into account when determining whether or not a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site and requires an appropriate assessment (noting the recent People Over Wind Ruling by the Court of
+Justice of the European Union).//
+//For this reason, we advise that on the basis of the information supplied that the application may have a likely significant effect on these sites. These measures therefore need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).//
+Explicitly states disposal is not in SSSI, however all dredging is in SSSI which reinforces the statements above.
+**....we encourage the MMO to take a cautious approach when considering activities within the Tees which may mobilise contaminated sediment ....**
+//Natural England defer to Cefas and the Environment Agency for further detailed advice on contaminated sediments. We acknowledge that Cefas will likely be consulted on any sediment sampling results, however we would like to take the opportunity to advise that you ensure sufficient and adequate analysis and assessment of impacts of contaminants and pollutants within sediments is carried out down to the lowest levels of proposed dredging before commencement of works. If hazardous levels of contaminants are discovered then methods to limit their release and spread during the project, to the wider area will need to be considered. If safer methods cannot be established then mitigation for any potential damage to surrounding ecosystems must be considered. Natural England would like to be kept informed and have an opportunity to provide further advice, particularly should the project methodology be amended following sample analysis and assessment.//
+//We draw the MMOs attention to the Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA which contains a target as follows “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.”//
+I have found no evidence that the MMO or PD Ports carried out any assessment of the impact of the contaminated sediments mobilisation caused by dredging on the SSSI, aside from in relation to disposal at sea.
+NE further stressed need for caution in [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference B - 338486  338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf|Reference B - 338486  338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf]] and [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|Reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]].
 ===== Request =====
@@ Line 178: / Line 215: @@
 Natural England is therefore satisfied that the information requested fits the definition of personal data and that its release would be ‘unfair’ under the meaning of the first Data Protection Principle and should not be released.
+====== Other Pages That Link To This Page ======
+{{backlinks>.}}