To report the Judgement in the High Court action by Ynys Môn (Anglesey Council) and Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC) against the 1962 Menai Strait Oyster and Mussel Several Fishery Order

1.1 The proposal to construct a marina at Gallows point on the 1962 Menai Strait Several Order has been advanced by Ynys Môn and its preferred developer, Anglesey Boat Company (ABC), for more than 10 years. The claimants were later joined by the CEC. The Defendants in the case were the Committee, the Menai Strait Mussel Industry and the Welsh Ministers.

1.2 The Committee has become engaged in this action because it objected to the marina development and has consistently held that a marina could not legally be constructed on a fishery order. The Committee considered that it had a duty to defend the Order for the benefit of the wider shellfish culture industry in the UK. Despite prolonged pressure on the Committee from Ynys Môn to give notice to the Mussel Industry, the Committee has resolved that it could not remove its leaseholders while the lays were being properly operated.

2.1 In early March 2008, the matter came to a judgement in the High Court which sat in Caernarfon for the purpose of hearing this case. Judgement was reserved to be handed down in London on 6 May 2008.

2.2 The Judgement runs to 55 pages and is available from the Clerk as a background paper. The conclusion at paragraph 110 is a concise summary as follows:

2.3 The judgement is a comprehensive vindication of the Committee’s resolutions on this matter since 1998.

3.1 Ynys Môn and CEC have announced their intention to appeal the judgement. This is disappointing in view of the comprehensive nature of the judgement and the delay which this case is causing to Fishery Order applications in the UK.

3.2 It is not clear what CEC want to get out of this case. With the Committee’s agreement, the CEO will write to CEC to request that they desist from further legal action and enter negotiations to address their concerns about Fishery Orders. We consider that, what ever the final outcome of the case, there will have to be a negotiated settlement to the CEC matters of concern and the Committee would wish that process to start as soon as possible.

3.3 Officers will continue the previous line taken by the Committee in this case and supply all information and support necessary to defend the Fishery Order. It may be possible to report verbally to the Committee, any new information about the claimants’ grounds of appeal which is not available at the time of writing.

4.1 The wider implications of this case beyond the Menai Strait marina and the 1962 Order remain in force.

4.2 The CEC continue to refuse to grant a legal consent for Fishery Order applications so such applications are delayed pending a resolution of this matter.

4.3 As part of our comment on the draft Marine Bill, the CEO has written to Defra to request that the requirement to obtain CEC consent for Fishery Order applications be removed from the regulations. In view of the judgement it is not right that CEC have a complete veto over the establishment of new or renewed Fishery Orders which are an important and effective mechanism for establishing well managed and highly sustainable fisheries.

4.4 CEC make considerable play in their promotional literature and on their web site of their support for sustainable aquaculture. The Committee would request that CEC make good that support in respect of providing a legally valid consent for fishery orders.