North East File Collection - NEFC

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.

1. PD Ports has not consulted NE on the impacts of the operations of dredging on protected sites etc.
2. PD Ports have not consulted NE on TSHD overflow and contaminant recirculation. However, NE in Reference A made relevant recommendations.
3. PD Ports have not consulted NE on TSHD dredging operation within the estuary on foraging.
4. Water framework directive I should approach the Environment Agency.
5. 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.
6. NE not consulted on site specific contaminants.

Relevant recommendations made in 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 Reference B - 338486 338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf and Reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf.

8th March 2026

Dear Natural England,

I am writing on behalf of North East Marine Research Group to request environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004 as follows.

Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes from January 2020 to the present regarding:

Request 1.1: Whether the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025), which justifies the environmental safety of dredging by categorizing it as “part of the baseline” because it is “near continuous”, is legally and scientifically acceptable for a site where key units, such as Seal Sands (SSSI Unit 8) and Bran Sands (SSSI Unit 26), are currently in “Unfavourable-Declining” condition.**

Request 1.2: estuarine plume modelling, or the lack thereof, for the inner reaches (Reaches 1-9 + Seaton Channel + Teesport) of the Tees estuary;

The MDP confirms the use of TSHDs with “green valves.” However, industry literature confirms that these valves do not reduce the mass of contaminants released but merely reduce visual surface turbidity.

Request 2.1: the “Fine Particle Enrichment” effect, where legacy contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs) are concentrated in the overflow and returned to the flood-dominant estuary?

Request 2.2: the risk of this “closed loop” of contamination to benthic-feeding birds and the recovery of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla)?

Common Terns forage over the entire length of the River Tees. The MDP justifies safety by stating re-suspension is limited in “sandy areas.”

Request 3.1: the impact of TSHD overflow plumes in the silty upper reaches (Reaches 1-5) on the foraging success of SPA-interest bird species.

The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for chemicals including PBDEs and mercury.

Request 4.1: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Recovery: whether remobilisation of these toxins during dredging is a barrier to achieving “Good Ecological Potential”.

Request 5.1: the cumulative impact of maintenance dredging alongside major capital projects, such as the South Bank Quay and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT), on the estuary's “Sediment Trap” effect.

Given the pyridine controversy of 2021-2022,

Request 6.1: the need for site-specific industrial contaminants (beyond standard Cefas suites) in PD Teesport’s mid-licence sampling to protect the SPA's supporting habitats?

Natural England's “Advice on Operations”

Please respond within the 20-working-day statutory limit.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are NOT requesting the Marine Licence or returns for sea disposal (e.g., MLA/2015/00088 and MLA/2025/00263) and do not require personal information properly withheld for data protection reasons.

14 April 2026

Access to Information Request – Request no EIR2026/02953

Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 08 March 2026 and extended 07 April 2026. Your request has been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).

You asked for the following information (text in bold below). Please find below our response to each of your questions below.

Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes from January 2020 to the present 08 March 2025 (date we received your request) regarding:

Request 1.1: Whether the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025), which justifies the environmental safety of dredging by categorizing it as “part of the baseline” because it is “near continuous”, is legally and scientifically acceptable for a site where key units, such as Seal Sands (SSSI Unit 8) and Bran Sands (SSSI Unit 26), are currently in “Unfavourable-Declining” condition.

Natural England’s (NE) Northumbria Area (Marine) Team have searched their records and can confirm that we do not hold any advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes on this aspect of the MDP. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.

Therefore, we can confirm that Natural England has not been formally consulted on this MDP by PD ports. The MDP was provided as part of the consultation documents from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for the consultation MLA/2025/00263 (Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge Disposal). NE specifically queried whether the MMO required statutory advice on the MDP and were advised that this was not necessary. NE’s advice was requested specifically in relation to dredge disposal only. A copy of our advice on the disposal consultation is provided in the attached zip file (reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf).

Request 1.2: estuarine plume modelling, or the lack thereof, for the inner reaches (Reaches 1-9 + Seaton Channel + Teesport) of the Tees estuary.

We can confirm that we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes regarding the Tees Estuarine Plume Modelling. Therefore, under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.

The MDP confirms the use of TSHDs with “green valves.” However, industry literature confirms that these valves do not reduce the mass of contaminants released but merely reduce visual surface turbidity.

Request 2.1: the “Fine Particle Enrichment” effect, where legacy contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs) are concentrated in the overflow and returned to the flood-dominant estuary?

We can confirm we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications or meeting minutes on the concentration of contaminants within dredge vessel overflows. Therefore, under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.

This is beyond NE role and remit, and other statutory advisers such as CEFAS provide advice on contaminants and suitability for dredge disposal.

Request 2.2: the risk of this “closed loop” of contamination to benthic-feeding birds and the recovery of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla)?

We can confirm that we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes relating to the ‘closed loop’ of contaminants. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.

We have provided high-level, generic advice to the MMO (for example, reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf) regarding the need for caution due to elevated contaminant levels and the proximity of designated species.

NE role and remit is focused upon designated sites and species. As eels are not a designated species for the relevant sites at the Tees Estuary, we have not provided advice on this species. NE would defer to the Environment Agency (EA) for matters relevant to eels.

Common Terns forage over the entire length of the River Tees. The MDP justifies safety by stating re-suspension is limited in “sandy areas.”

Request 3.1: the impact of TSHD overflow plumes in the silty upper reaches (Reaches 1-5) on the foraging success of SPA-interest bird species.

We can confirm we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications or meeting minutes on the TSHD overflow plumes. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.

As acknowledged above NE has not been consulted upon the MDP for PD Ports and therefore have not provided advice on the information contained within the document.

The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for chemicals including PBDEs and mercury.

Request 4.1: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Recovery: whether remobilisation of these toxins during dredging is a barrier to achieving “Good Ecological Potential”.

Natural England’s role is to provide ecological advice in line with our role and remit, primarily focused upon designated sites and species. We do not routinely provide advice on WFD as this is the statutory role provided by the Environment Agency to the MMO. Our advice (as provided to the MMO reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf) would be regarding the ecological components of WFD (sensitive habitats/species and protected areas). We have not provided specific advice on whether the remobilisation of PBDEs and mercury presents a barrier to achieving Good Environmental Potential - this would be a matter for the EA’s consideration.

Our Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area includes the following target: ‘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.’ This is available via the link provided here: TCC Conservation Advice - link removed in pdf.

Request 5.1: the cumulative impact of maintenance dredging alongside major capital projects, such as the South Bank Quay and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT), on the estuary's “Sediment Trap” effect.

The MMO are one of the key regulators and are a competent authority responsible for undertaking the Habitat Regulations Assessments for proposals through their licensing regime. Other regulators, Local Planning Authority and Planning Inspectorate have equivalent responsibilities. The MMO will undertake in-combination assessments, as appropriate, for any licence application- see guidance here: Habitats regulations assessments: protecting a European site - GOV.UK. An in-combination assessment considers the effects of concurrent activities. Natural England is a statutory consultee under Regulation 63 (3) of the Habitats Regulations and will provide advice on the assessment including in-combination where that assessment has concluded Likely Significant Effects. NE provide advice on a case-by-case basis and contribute to these in-combination assessments accordingly.

In response to the South Bank Quay marine licence consultation (MLA/2020/00506 / MLA/2020/00507), a copy is saved in the zip file (reference B - 338486 338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf) we advised that the MMO should assess in-combination effects with various projects, including maintenance dredging. We also advised the MMO to broaden their scope for in-combination effects, a copy is saved in the zip file (reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf).

Given the pyridine controversy of 2021-2022.

Request 6.1: the need for site-specific industrial contaminants (beyond standard Cefas suites) in PD Teesport’s mid-licence sampling to protect the SPA's supporting habitats?

We can confirm we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications or meeting minutes on mid-licence sampling. Therefore, under Regulation 12(4) (a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.

Natural England does not provide advice on site specific contaminants and does not provide advice on sampling requirements. The MMO in consultation with CEFAS lead determination of appropriate sampling provisions for applicants.

As outlined above, Natural England’s primary role is to provide ecological advice relating to designated sites/species. We provide advice when requested to do so through formal statutory consultation by regulatory authorities (i.e. MMO, LPAs). Other government agencies such as the Environment Agency and Cefas have greater expertise and remit regarding chemical contaminants and the wider water environment.

All information relating to the designated sites is available through Natural England’s designated sites system:

1. Our statutory Conservation Advice on the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI is available here: SSSI detail.
2. Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SSSI Condition Assessment is available here: Site feature condition.
3. Our statutory Conservation Advice on the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA is available here: SPA Conservation Advice.

Some of the information contained within the documents has been withheld as it engages Regulation 12(3) – Personal Information – of the EIRs. The names, signatures, and contact details of private individuals and staff members in certain circumstances are considered by Natural England to be personal information as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. For more details about this exception, please refer to Annex A – ‘Personal Information’.

Please note that the information we have supplied to you is subject to copyright protection under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and news reporting. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Natural England copyright, and you must give the title of the source document/publication. However, if you wish to re-use all or part of this information for commercial purposes, including publishing and the information is not covered by the Open_Government Licence you will need to apply for a licence. Applications can be sent to Enquiry Service, Natural England, Foss House, Kings Pool, 1-2 Peasholme Green, York, YO1 7PX.

This information may also contain third party copyrighted material and you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned before you re-use it.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. As you may be aware, under the legislation should you have any concerns with the service you have received in relation to your requests and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, please contact me and I’ll arrange for a colleague to conduct an internal review.

Under Regulation 11(2) this needs to be done no later than 40 working days after the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of that complaint or the internal review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Commissioner cannot decide unless you have exhausted the internal review procedure provided by Natural England.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted_at: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/ or call on 0303 123 1113 (local rate), www.ico.org.uk.

Regulation 12(3) – a prohibition on disclosure of personal information.

The names, signatures, and contact details of private individuals and employees of Natural England in certain circumstances are considered by Natural England to be personal information as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.

The First Data Protection Principle says that personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner. Guidance published by the Information Commissioner, states that when considering fairness in relation to disclosing personal information under FOIA [and EIR] it will usually mean considering:

• whether the information is sensitive personal data;
• the possible consequences of disclosure on the individual;
• the reasonable expectations of the individual, taking into account: their expectations both at the time the information was collected and at the time of the request; the nature of the information itself; the circumstances in which the information was obtained; whether the information has been or remains in the public domain; and the FOIA [and EIR] principles of transparency and accountability; and
• any legitimate interests in the public having access to the information and the balance between these and the rights and freedoms of the individuals who are the data subjects.

  We believe that the private individuals named on these documents have a reasonable expectation that their names and contact details should not be disclosed and in our opinion the release of this information would cause unnecessary and unjustified harm or distress to the person who the information is about and place them at risk of harassment.

Considering all the factors above, Natural England does not believe that the release of names, contact details and work contact details of those involved in this decision is, in this case, necessary in order to satisfy the legitimate public interest in the accountability of public sector employees and would not add any additional value other than potentially to target those involved.

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.