Northern Gateway Container Terminal – GOV.UK

Case Details

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) received a Marine Licence application, also requiring EIA consent, in February 2020 from PD Teesport (“the applicant”). In summary, the Project comprises:

• Capital dredging of the approach channel to the Project as well as creation of a new berth pocket (equating to dredging of up to 4.8 million m3 of material). Realignment of the existing approach channel in the vicinity of the proposed terminal and deepening of the two existing turning circles (Tees Dock turning circle and Seaton Channel turning circle) in the Tees estuary.

• Disposal of dredged material (through a combination of beneficial re-use (localised reclamation and raising land levels within the proposed terminal site) and offshore disposal).

• Construction of a container terminal facility.

• Construction of various landside elements (buildings, rail terminal, road access, lighting, drainage and a pumping station).

Environmental Impact Assessment

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (“the Regulations”) transposed Council Directive 2011/92/EU (as amended) into UK law for marine licence applications. The regulations aim to protect the environment and the quality of life by ensuring that projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects by virtue of their nature, size or location are subject to an EIA before permission is granted.

Pursuant to Regulation 5 of the Regulations, it was agreed between the MMO and the applicant that the proposed works constitute an EIA development under Schedule A2, para numbers 63 and 89 of the Regulations, specifically:

63) Construction of harbours and port installations including fishing harbours (unless included in Schedule A1).

89) Any change to or extension of development of a description listed in paragraphs 1 to 87 of this Schedule where that development is already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed.

Therefore, the application required for the Project was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (“ES”) titled IBPB8270R001F01 EIA REPORT.

Habitats Regulation Assessment

The project is situated within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and in close proximity to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar Site. The MMO adopted the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) completed on behalf of PD Teesport Limited as a competent authority in their own right.

An alone and in-combination appropriate assessment was undertaken of the implications of the proposal in consideration of the applicable conservation objectives. In the assessment undertaken by PDT it was concluded that the proposed project when assessed alone and in-combination with other plans and projects, will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the following site(s), either alone or in combination:

• Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Tees
• Cleveland Coast RAMSAR.

Please see Section 29 of the Northern Gateway Container Terminal Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the HRA and document PB8270-RHD-ZZ-XX-NT-Z-0003 for the associated addendum undertaken by PDT.

MMO confirms the adoption of PDT’s Habitats Regulations decision on the basis that the MMO is satisfied that PDT assessment and subsequent decision is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Habitat Regulations in relation to the project.

Consultation

Following an initial internal assessment, the case proceeded to consultation under The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (As Amended). In addition to consulting the public, the MMO also consulted the following bodies:

• Centre for Environment Fisheries Aquaculture and Science (Cefas)
• The Crown Estate
• Environment Agency (EA)
• Historic England (HE)
• Local Planning Authority – Middlesbrough Council
• North East Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (NEIFCA)
• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
• Local MMO office (North East marine area)
• Ministry of Defence (MOD)
• Natural England (NE)
• Royal Yachting Association (RYA)
• Trinity House
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Summaries of the key consultation issues are provided below:

Consultation with Natural England

• The MMO consulted Natural England who advised further information was required in relation to ‘above water noise disturbance’ to SPA and Ramsar birds from percussive piling and impacts of dredging upon Vopak foreshore which is located approximately 280 metres away from the proposed capital dredge area and adjacent to the Tees estuary.
• Following further consultation NE confirmed “subject to the use of noise attenuation there will be no adverse effect on the interest features of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site as a result of piling or other noisy activities covered by this application”. Therefore NE were content that the proposed mitigation measures would be sufficient enough to prevent adverse effects through noise.
• The MMO has reviewed advice from NE, supporting information from the applicant and considered guidance on potential habitat loss.
• In reaching a decision, the characteristics of the impacted habitat have been considered by the MMO.
• It was concluded that the data shows that roosting was being undertaken across the low, mid and high area of the foreshore as well as other areas in the vicinity – not affected by this dredging proposal.
• Data on benthic invertebrate communities (possible prey items for birds) concluded no significant difference in numbers across the different levels of the foreshore.
• The available evidence supports the conclusion that functional integrity of the site will not, therefore, be adversely affected.
• NE did not raise any objection relating to the disposal activity of dredged material to sea.

Consultation with EA

• A Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment was completed by the applicant which concluded that the potential impact to water quality associated with the increase in suspension, dispersion, remobilisation and redistribution of suspended solids would lead residual impacts of negligible significance.
• Environment Agency (EA) were consulted and initially objected to the application as submitted as it may prevent the WFD waterbody from reaching Good Ecological Potential (GEP). EA advised that the proposed activity had been incorrectly scoped, with some habitats not being scoped into the assessment.
• There had also been an inadequate assessment of water quality, an inadequate assessment of the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime, a lack of clarity on the loss of intertidal habitat and no assessment as to whether the activity would jeopardise the waterbody attaining GEP.
• The applicant provided further information and updated their WFD assessment and after several rounds of consultation, EA removed their objection subject to mitigation measures being employed. The further information provided by the applicant included an additional water quality assessment and a calculation of the impacted biodiversity units.
• EA were keen to support the applicant in pursuing off-site mitigations but understood that there is no legal mechanism to support this through a marine licence issued by MMO. The applicant has worked closely with the EA and other bodies to identify a parcel of land for additional post-intervention works at the North Tees Mudflat.
• As MMO have no legal mechanism to support habitat compensation through a marine licence, it was agreed that the proposed amendment to the existing legal agreement legal agreement between EA and PD Ports to cover the enhancement of mudflat would be the appropriate option.
• EA did not raise any objection relating to the disposal activity of dredged material to sea.

Request for further information

The MMO issued several requests for further information to the applicant as part of the application process, including requests for updated Water Framework Directive (WFD) information and environmental reports for impacts to migratory fish and physical processes.

A further round of consultation was undertaken with the EA and Cefas to ensure that the updated information satisfied their original questions and concerns.

Conclusion

The MMO has conducted a comprehensive review of the proposed scheme, including consultation with our scientific advisors, stakeholder organisations and SNCB.

The MMO has considered the concerns raised by the EA and NE when making its decision. Further, the MMO has considered the Project against the North East Inshore Marine Plan and found the Project to be compliant. After reviewing the best available evidence provided, taking into account the consultation advice from EA and our own scientific advice, the MMO were minded to approve the marine licence application. The MMO is content that the representations received were sufficiently addressed by the marine licence conditions.

The Marine Licence L/2021/00354/1 was issued on 2 March 2022 and included conditions to ensure the considerations raised during consultation had been addressed. This licence was also covered in the EIA Consent Decision which was issued on 2 March 2022.

Post Consent actions

Conditions on the Marine Licence ensured that various plans would need to be approved prior to the commencement of any dredging activities, these can be seen on the marine licence document but broadly included:

• Detailed Method Statement
• Geoarchaeological assessment
• A plan to minimise cumulative environmental impacts from the disposal of dredged material