The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is currently consulting on proposed changes to marine licences. The consultation applies to the English inshore and offshore region and the Northern Ireland offshore region regulated by the MMO. There are a number of the proposed changes that could have a significant affect on harbour authorities and it is very important that they respond to the consultation ahead of the deadline at 11.55pm on 15 August 2025.
The proposed changes are to:
This article sets out the main areas, positive and negative, where statutory harbour authorities (SHAs) may wish to respond to the consultation.
Negative: the proposals are detailed and significant. They are also likely to result in large increases in marine licence application fees - with MMO hourly rates being increased from £94 (or £122) per hour to £155 per hour, removals of a number of fee caps or very significant increases to them (e.g. £2,200 to £12,390 for some band 2 applications), and an increase in the dredge disposal levy from 1p/tonne to 3p/tonne and removal of the £15,000 cap.
In addition, Defra is considering introducing a mechanism for primary advisers such as Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to recover their costs incurred when providing advice in response to marine licensing applications, i.e. potentially in the same way Cefas does. If introduced this could again significantly increase costs.
Whilst the proposal that applicants should cover the costs of their applications may be supported in principle if a service is operating efficiently and proportionately, the consultation document contains no commitments to improve MMO efficiency when deciding licence applications, or the exclusion of any activities (such as time spent by new case officers getting up to speed when the MMO change them part way through applications) from charging. It also starkly highlights how much time is being spent on even very simple projects, giving an average of 41 hours MMO chargeable time per application since 2018, for the simplest band 2 applications – projects up to £50,000.
Due to the length and complexity of the proposals, please click here to read our separate article setting them out.
Potentially negative: currently the deployment of scientific instruments that reduce navigational clearance by more than 5% requires a full marine licence application to be made (those under the threshold are exempt). The proposal is to change the requirement to a 'self-service' activity if certain conditions are met, instead of fully licensable, but the consultation paper does not indicate what those conditions are - so it is not possible to know if the proposal is appropriate or could cause navigational safety issues, including in harbour authority areas.
Harbour authorities may therefore wish to object to the proposed change, on the basis that insufficient information has been provided in the consultation document to enable the proposal to be considered or meaningful consultation to take place, and that it should be reconsulted on with the proposed self-service conditions included in the consultation document.
Positive: there is a proposal to make unexploded ordnance (UXO) investigations, but not detonations, eligible for self-service marine licensing. The proposed conditions include that:
UXO detonations would still require a full marine licence application, but the self-service proposal for investigations, could benefit harbour authorities.
Potentially positive: the MMO proposes to introduce a new marine licensing exemption in respect of the removal of ‘abandoned vessels’ - any vessel left in a state of disrepair and left within the marine or coastal environment.
Removal of such vessels, in our view, would not usually be within the scope of marine licensing in any event, where for example they are still afloat, i.e. can be towed and lifted out. In addition, in so far as a marine licence could be required, harbour authorities can already remove ‘anything’ causing or likely to cause obstruction or danger to navigation under the ‘removal of obstruction of danger to navigation’ exemption (art 24 Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011). In addition, other relevant exemptions that may apply in the circumstances including ‘dismantling of ships’ and ‘deposits in the course of normal navigation or maintenance’, (articles 22 and 28 respectively).
The main purpose of the express exemption is to allow ‘any person’, i.e. not just owners or public bodies such as harbour authorities, to remove abandoned vessels from the marine environment without a marine licence. This in principle should be good news. As long as the proposed circumstances in which the exemption is disapplied do not act to narrow harbour authorities already existing powers, for example under article 24 of the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011.
It does not appear on first glance that they will - the consultation document indicates the exemption won’t apply where the activity is likely to cause damage to features of archaeological or historical interest, giving a list of examples such as protected wrecks.
Potentially negative: there is a proposal exempt certain maintenance activities relating to fixing, replacement and upkeep the ‘ancillary assets’ of such structures o from requiring a marine licence. This would, for example, exempt changes to or installation of lights, signage, work to pathways, fencing, road surfacing, drainage etc.
Of potential concern to harbour authorities is the proposal to exempt ‘changes to or installation of lights’. Changes to the lighting arrangements could affect safe navigation and as such it is likely this should be removed from the proposed exemption, beyond like for like replacement.
Positive: it is proposed to extend the current exemption for in-water hull cleaning, which currently only applies where the cleaning is carried out by hand using a soft cloth, sponge, the bristles of a soft brush, or sandpaper with a grit size of at least P2000. The extension could include the use of techniques and technology capable of significantly reducing deposits arising from the activity such that they are negligible, such as mechanical cleaners that remove the material in situ.
Potentially positive: the current exemption for depositing and removing moorings and aids to navigation (article 25 of the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011) and the more limited exemption for the depositing and removal of pontoons (Article 25A) include specific activities where the activity is carried out in accordance with a required consent granted by a Harbour Authority.
The proposal is to amend the exemptions to make it clear that to fall within this exemption, harbour authority consent must be required, i.e. through harbour works licensing, byelaws etc, rather than simply permission being given by the harbour authority. The person relying on the exemption will have to notify the MMO and provide a copy of the consent relied on. It is likely these clarifications will benefit harbour authorities overall, i.e. reduce stakeholder objections to mooring licensing etc by harbour authorities. However it does mean the consents they are granting, such as mooring licences or harbour works licences, will be in the public domain if submitted to the MMO.
Negative: the consultation proposes disapplying a number of marine licensing exemptions in Highly Protected Marine Areas (‘HPMAs’). Whilst this may be entirely sensible where HMPAs are situated in suitable locations, it is very concerning that one of the exemptions proposed to be disapplied (see Annex A of the consultation document) is the very important ‘Maintenance of harbour works’ exemption (article 23 of the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011).
Of most concern is the implication that follows from this, i.e. that government is intending to designated HPMAs in harbour authority limits, potentially even overlapping/immediately adjacent to actual harbour infrastructure. Given the statutory duties of harbour authorities, including in respect of the Open Port Duty and the necessity (generally) to dredge and certainly to maintain harbour infrastructure, the designation of HPMAs within SHA limits in this way is likely to be wholly incompatible with the statutory duties of harbour authorities. The potential of the MMO being able to refuse to grant a marine licence for a harbour authority to maintain existing harbour works, within their existing footprint, could place harbour authorities in an impossible position – i.e. they either breach their core statutory duties by failing to maintain, or commit a criminal offence if they do.
Harbour authorities therefore are likely to wish to respond to the consultation both in respect of the incompatibility of HPMAs in harbour limits and the removal of exemption - noting that in itself, retention of the exemption does not fully solve the issue. In the absence of the MMO or another regulator granting consent the harbour authority will be responsible for, for example any appropriate environmental assessments, therefore an HPMA designation could still cause significant issues.
There are a number of other proposals we have not covered above including:
As set out, there are a number of the proposed changes that could have a significant effect on harbour authorities. There is also the opportunity to suggest further changes to self-service activities or exemptions when responding to the consultation. As such it is very important that they respond to the consultation ahead of the deadline at 11.55pm on 15 August 2025.
For further information or advice, please contact our marine team.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
