North East File Collection - NEFC

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Marine Licensing\\
Tyneside House\\
Newcastle Business Park\\
Newcastle upon Tyne\\
NE4 7AR\\
T +44(0)300 123 1032\\ 
**www.gov.uk/mmo**
 
PD Ports\\
17-27 Queens Square\\ 
Middlesbrough\\
TS2 1AH 

**By email only** 

03 June 2026 
 
Dear PD Ports, 

**SAMPLE ADVICE FOR Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge Disposal.**

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) sought advice for the upcoming Marine License application for Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge Disposal. 

The MMO is writing to inform you that the samples and results received under SAM/2024/00054 are still considered suitable and acceptable for disposal at sea under OSPAR and London Protocol (LP) guidelines. The MMO therefore does not require any further sampling to inform the upcoming Licence application to be submitted in 2026. 

This does not mean you cannot undertake additional sampling should you feel this would be beneficial to assist with the new Licence application determination. 

The MMO has made this decision alongside the advice received in consultation with our technical advisors The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas). The Cefas advice has been attached to this letter. 

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me using the details provided below.  

Yours Sincerely, \\
Marine Case Manager\\ 

**REQUEST TO CONSIDER SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR A FUTURE APPLICATION BY PD TEESPORT LIMITED FOR THE CONTINUED DISPOSAL OF DREDGE MATERIAL FROM TEES AND HARTLEPOOL TO TEES BAY A DISPOSAL SITE (POST JUDICIAL 
REVIEW), NORTH SEA. **

Reference Number: **MLA/2025/00263 – CS5** \\
From: Cefas, Lowestoft Laboratory \\
Date: 15th May 2026 \\
**To: MMO (via email)**
 
1. With reference to the above request to consider sampling requirements for a future application 
for a licence renewal for the continued use of Tees Bay A disposal site (post-Judicial Review) in the 
North Sea for maintenance dredge material from Tees and Hartlepool by PD Teesport Limited and 
your request for comments dated 28th April 2026 please find my comments below. 
 
2. This minute is provided in response to your advisory request on sediment quality issues n relation 
to the above proposal in my capacity as scientific and technical advisor for sediment quality in 
relation to, and regulatory requirements for dredge and disposal operations. The response 
pertains to those areas of application that are of relevance to this field. This minute does not 
provide specialist advice regarding benthic ecology, marine processes, fish and fisheries, 
shellfisheries, or underwater noise as, whilst these are within Cefas’ remit, they are outside my 
area of specialism. Should the MMO require advice on these specialisms I understand that these 
will be pursued under separate advice requests. 

3. In line with our cost-recovery agreement, in providing this advice I have spent 7.0 hours of the 
allocated 7.0 hours by the MMO. I have booked my time to MLA/2025/00263 under activity CS5. 

4. I have provided my comments based on the below category system: 

Category 1: **Major Comment (Action)-** It is my advice that the application should not 
be granted a licence until this is resolved. There is high uncertainty or a 
large risk to the environment. MMO are strongly advised to request this 
further information then re-consult Cefas. 

Category 2: **Minor Comment (Action)-** There are data/ information/ evidence missing 
that could affect the assessment. Provision of the data/information would 
allow for due diligence to ensure there is sufficient confidence in the 
applicant’s and my own assessment but would not necessarily preclude 
the granting of a licence. MMO advised to request further information from 
applicant and then to re-consult Cefas, however MMO may be able to 
grant licence if this information is not submitted, provided MMO have 
clear rationale for their decision.  

Category 3: **Minor Comment (No Action)-** These highlight those things that should 
be included as best practice but would not affect my overall conclusions. 
Should be taken forward by the developer for any future applications/ post 
consent requirements, or presentation issues. MMO case team could 
pass this on to applicant, however this information is not required for 
consultation with Cefas. 

Category 4: **Observation-** Statements regarding what is stated in the application, or 
areas of good practice are highlighted. No action for MMO case team but 
this could be passed on to applicant if MMO wish, to pass on areas of 
good practice. 

===== Documents reviewed =====

5. [[this>RiverTees/Planning/SAM_2024_00054/SAM_2024_00054-APPLICATION-FORM.pdf|SAM/2024/00054 – Application Form]] (for the previous corresponding sampling advice request). 

6. [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Consultations/20250823 MLA202500263 Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge - Renewal Application SEAL Advice FINAL.pdf|MLA/2025/00263 Advice from Cefas to MMO: Renewal Application Maintenance Dredging at Tees and Hartelpool by PD Teesport Middlesborough, 24th July 2025]]. (accessed from Cefas files July 2024). 

===== Description of the proposed works =====

7. In November 2025, PD Teesport were granted marine licence L/2025/00366/1 which permitted the renewal of their previously held licence (L/2015/00427/7) to dispose of maintenance dredgings from the Tees River and Hartlepool at Tees Bay A disposal site (TY160). The total volumes permitted equated to 2,889,700 wet tonnes in 2025 to Tees Bay A (TY160) disposal site per year. 

8. Following a formal Judicial Review of the licence, the MMO took the decision to not defend the case and subsequently the licence was ascribed a suspended quashing order in the High Cour[[20260602_Tees_Bay_A_Disposal-sampling-responses.html#3|t1.]] As such, disposal of dredged aterial under the existing licence (L/2025/00366/1) can be undertaken until the quashing order comes into force in March 2027, after which point, a new marine licence will be required for the activities in question to take place. 

9. As this licence relates to the disposal of maintenance dredged material necessary for the operations of PD Teesport, a new marine licence application is almost certain. On this basis, the MMO is further consulting Cefas on the sampling requirements that will be sufficient to support the licence application. No new information has been provided for review. 
 
===== Responses to Questions posed by the MMO Case Officer. =====

**All responses are observations unless otherwise stated.** 
 
**MMO Question 1. Are you content the sampling analysis provides enough information to ascertain if the material can be disposed of at sea? (Question 2) If yes please provide justification. If no, how many additional samples are required and why, please provide locations and depths of these samples.**

10. The sampling undertaken to support the application for L/2025/00366/1 (MLA/2025/00263) was advised on under SAM/2024/00054. The application advice (document in point 6 – [[this>RiverTees/Planning/MLA_2025_00263/Consultations/20250823 MLA202500263 Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge - Renewal Application SEAL Advice FINAL.pdf|Cefas, 24th July 2025]]) reviewed the data and found it appropriate to support the application, and the advice ultimately concluded that the material remained acceptable for disposal at sea under OSPAR and London Protocol (LP) guidelines. To summarise the comments raised for the data: 

i. The number of samples collected (n = 31) was slightly below the effort recommended by OSPAR, but that the sampling undertaken was nonetheless considered adequate to provide spatial coverage to assess sediment quality of the material to be considered for disposal at sea. 

ii. No sample exceeded any Action Level 2 (AL2) – the limit above which dredged material is considered unsuitable for sea disposal. Those which exceeded Action Level 1 (AL1) were closer to the respective AL1 than to the AL2, indicating the material to be acceptable for disposal at sea. 

iii. Other assessment criteria indicated PAHs to be above the upper assessment criterion for low-molecular weight PAHs, but this represented a consistent decline in levels since the inception of the licence. 

iv. Some PBDEs were observed to have increased since the previous sampling stage, requiring further consideration, but not significant in precluding material from disposal at sea under OSPAR and the LP. 
 
11. Fundamentally, as no new information has been presented, and there is no change to the activities that will be applied for in the eventual marine licence application, there is no basis to provide any different comments. Instead, I will provide further clarification of our advice in light of the context of the challenge in the Judicial Review where relevant, structured into different subsections. 
 
===== Sub-section 1. The purpose of sampling for disposal at sea =====

12. As a signatory to the LP and OSPAR Convention, the UK must have a permitting system for disposal at sea applications, and part of that system must include characterisation of the material to be disposed of at sea. The MMO is the regulator for dredged material disposal operations under the LP and OSPAR in England, and its licensing powers and responsibilities are stipulated in the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) (2009). As well as discharging signatory obligations of the LP and OSPAR Convention, the MMO must also satisfy various obligations outlined under MCAA with respect to protecting the marine environment from harmful pollution. Satisfying the obligations of the LP and OSPAR Convention is procedurally simple: sediments should be characterised for their risk, assessed using the Action Levels Framework, and then a decision made accordingly. Satisfying the broader obligations outlined in MCAA is more nuanced, requiring different strands of evidence, expert interpretation and broader risk assessment. In this respect, when Cefas is providing sampling advice, our primary consideration is that the sampling should be sufficient to satisfy the LP and OSPAR requirements. Secondarily, we consider that the sampling will also be used as one part of a weight of evidence approach that the MMO will take in making a licence determination (e.g. one that balances proportionality to the applicant, likelihood of adverse effects occurring, and their potential significance). 

13. The sampling that is recommended is also done so on the assumption that it will be used to inform an assessment of disposal at sea, and not the dredging itself, as the receptors, impacts pathways and assessment methods for dredging can be very different from those for disposal. Advice on the dredging operation will be provided by Cefas if requested by the MMO. 

===== Sub-section 2. OSPAR Sampling Guidelines =====

14. In 2024, the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material were updated by the Expert Assessment Panel for Dredged Materia[[20260602_Tees_Bay_A_Disposal-sampling responses.html#4|l2 ]]following their previous publication in 2014. The 2014 OSPAR Guidelines recommended designing the sampling effort based on the volumes of material to be disposed of, specifically using the following table (the “volume-based guidelines”): 

^Anticipated disposal volume (m³)^Sampling required^
|Up to 25,000|3|
|25,000 – 100,000|4 – 6|
|100,000 – 500,000|7 - 15|
|500,000 – 2,000,000|16 - 30|
|>2,000,000|Extra 10 per million m³|
 
15. The 2024 update of the Guidelines included an additional method to design sampling effort based on the size of the dredge area (the “area-based guidelines”). It is important to note Cefas is the UK representative on the Expert Assessment Panel for Dredged Material on behalf of Defra that the area-based guidelines do not replace the volume-based guidelines. Rather, the 2024 OSPAR guidelines now allows Contracting Parties to use a range of different sampling approaches, including both volume and area-based methods. These guidelines are fundamentally intended to provide consistency in sampling across the OSPAR area, whilst also allowing for the variability in sediment dynamics, likelihood of contaminants and other risk factors that the guidelines themselves reference 

^Anticipated dredge area (m²)^Sampling required^
|<10,000|1 – 3|
|10,000 – 50,000|4 – 8|
|50,000 – 100,000|9 – 10|
|>100,000|Extra 5 per 100,000 m²|
 
16. OSPAR Guidelines are not mandatory but are instead guidelines to encourage consistently high standards across the OSPAR area, whilst also allowing for flexibility and adaptation where it is deemed appropriate. The face of the OSPAR Guidelines (Agreement 2014-06, Update 2024) (s1.3) states very clearly that: “All assessments are on national basis and not dictated by OSPAR”, whilst s2.5 states that:  “the detailed procedures described in the guidelines will not be applicable in all national or local circumstances.”  
 
===== Sub-section 3. Local context and history of the site =====

17. Dredging and disposal has been undertaken in the Tees for many decades, likely pre-dating regulation, and there is a time-series of sample data to characterise maintenance dredging of the Tees. In at least the last ten years, sampling for the Tees maintenance disposal licences has been undertaken at the same sites in each sampling campaign (e.g. pre-application and at 3-year intervals thereafter). This has allowed the development of a consistent sampling regime over time, enabling a better indication of spatial and temporal trends over the course of the licence, rather than if the sampling were different between campaigns. This is of value, as it allows for a pre-licence baseline (note that this isn’t a pre-dredged baseline, as this would not be possible for an industrialised river with such a history of dredging). Mid-licence sampling then allows for review of the sediments to indicate whether contaminant levels are increasing/decreasing as dredging is undertaken. This reflects the dynamic nature of estuaries, where there is significant sediment exchange between the sea and the river. As such, regular, consistent testing of marine sediments is critical to ensuring good representation of potential pollution risks. 

18. On this basis, we consider there to be greater value in maintaining the same parameters of sediment sampling as per previous sampling campaigns to allow for more accurate investigation of trends over time, than any benefits from using the area-based guidelines. Further, applying to area-based guidelines to the Tees maintenance disposal (The Teesport Statutory Harbour Authority area equates to ~16,000,000m²) would result in a recommendation of over 800 sediment samples. Such a high number of samples would likely be prohibitively expensive and likely provide diminishing returns with respect to providing more accurate characterisation of the sediments than a smaller number of samples under an established spatial and temporal sampling plan. The purpose of sediment sampling is for the MMO to have confidence in the characterisation of the sediment to be dumped at sea. A single, very large campaign of sediment sampling may have less scientific value than sampling consistently at regular intervals over the course of the licence (as is routine in the UK). 

19. It should also be noted that Cefas sampling recommendations represent the **minimum** number of samples required. We never disregard additional data if applicants have tested more samples than recommended. However, there is usually a limit to how many more additional samples can provide additional value. Should results indicate potential contaminant issues, it is routine practice that further sampling can be recommended – whether that be a repeated campaign with a greater number of samples to investigate the spatial extents of any contamination, or more regular monitoring thereafter (e.g. annual sampling requirements). 

20. Ultimately, in the case of the Tees, we have greater confidence in the contaminant status of its sediments than other, less well-characterised rivers, owing to the years of data available from disposal at sea applications. Further, the nature of dredging being for maintenance, rather than capital, reduces the risk of disturbing sediments that may be more contaminated than the surface material. As such, whilst we will not discourage an applicant from taking more samples than recommended, and will always review any and all evidence provided to us, we consider that the application of the area-based guidelines would result in a recommendation that is disproportionate to the risk posed by the activity and would unlikely lead to a different advice outcome. 
 
**Senior advisor **