The North Western and North Wales Sea Fishery Committee ("the Committee") is a statutory body created by Parliament whose powers derive from the Sea Fisheries Regulations Act 1966 ("the 1966 Act"). The Committee is made up of representatives from local authorities within the remit of the Committee and also persons appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or The Welsh Assembly Government.

The Committee is submitting these grounds to the Court in support of the judicial review claim which has been brought by the Claimants. In the view of the Committee, the Minister’s decision to grant a licence to ABC under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 ("FEPA") was flawed and wrong.

The Committee’s role is as the manager and protector of the fisheries within its district. The district for which the Committee is responsible extends from Haverigg Point in Cumbria down to Cemaes Head in Ceredigion and extends to six nautical miles from the coastline. These limits were defined by the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries District Order 1999. The area of the Menai Strait is within the remit of the Committee.

The Committee relies on a variety of primary and secondary legislation in discharge of its functions, in particular:

Without the powers and rights contained in these pieces of legislation, the Committee's role would be redundant.

In 1962, pursuant to the predecessor to the 1967 Act, the Menai Strait Oyster and Mussel Fishery Order 1962 ("the Order") created a several fishery within the Menai Strait district. For the last 45 years it has been the Committee's understanding, and the Committee has operated on the basis, that the fishery created by the Order could not be interfered with unless the Order was revoked or amended, or primary legislation was passed.

On only one occasion has the content of the Order been queried. This occurred in 1964 when the local authority and a local landowner (Bulkeley Estate) disputed the boundaries of the Order. The dispute was resolved to mutual satisfaction and the boundary was subsequently altered by Parliament. There has been no other objection raised since and the Order has been accepted.

A number of sea fisheries committees throughout England and Wales rely on similar orders (in particular The Wash Fishery Order), and operate on the same understanding.

The construction of the proposed marina would clearly interfere with the several fishery created by the Order. The Committee would be directly affected should the marina be constructed on top of Area 4. The Committee receives a rental income from the mussel lays leased under the Order and vital rental income will be removed, without compensation, should this lay no longer exist.

Furthermore, if the contractors in this case were allowed to build directly on top of an area within a several fishery, the role of sea fisheries committees throughout England and Wales would be called into doubt. Such committees would be under constant threat that their rights and powers could be removed. It would also allow other local authorities and landowners to attempt to construct on land, the rights of which belong to sea fisheries committees.

The Committee has, for a long time, expressed its concerns about the environmental information submitted by Anglesey Boat Company Limited ("ABC") and subsequently relied upon by the Welsh Assembly Government ("WAG") in granting the licence under the Food Environment Protection Act 1985 ("FEPA"). We set these out in summary below.

However, the flawed nature of the Minister’s decision with regard to environmental impact has only become fully apparent since these proceedings were commenced. It is clear from the Minister’s decision letter that he misunderstood the significance of the advice given to him by the Countryside Council for Wales ("CCW"), and accordingly reached a decision which was, as far as the Committee is aware, without any evidential basis:

In addition to this flaw, the Committee is concerned that the Minister appeared to ignore the advice given by the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science ("CEFAS") (page 145-146 of the Permission Bundle). CEFAS was more competent to advise on matters relating to the area concerned, and in its advice to WAG stated that the proposed marina could significantly alter the hydrological regime leading to the possibility of damaging pollution in the Menai Strait and damage to the mussel cultivation industry. CEFAS' advice also recommended that further studies should be undertaken to further analyse and assess the risk of damage resulting from the development.

The Committee is not convinced that the hydrological studies undertaken for the Environmental Statement were adequate or comprehensive. The Committee agrees with the Claimants' submissions that the Minister was wrong to treat the 1998 Environmental Statement as complying with the EIA Directive (Council Directive 85/337/EEC) in that the Minister had no legal basis on which to attempt to cure the deficiencies of the Environmental Statement by imposing conditions after the event. The reasons submitted by the Claimants at paragraphs 71 to 75 of their Statement of Grounds for Judicial Review and Facts Relied On are supported in full by the Committee.

The Committee understands that in considering whether to grant a licence under FEPA the Minister was required to consider whether the proposed construction would interfere with legitimate uses of the sea. The Committee’s own understanding of this provision is that it refers to pre-existing legitimate uses of the sea.

The area for the proposed marina is currently being used legitimately by the Claimants as lessees of various fishing lays leased by the Committee under the Order. These rights are granted under primary legislation and the Committee finds it difficult to understand how Parliament could have intended the Minister to be able arbitrarily to destroy the fishery granted under the 1962 Order.