Port CEO asks Ben Houchen to work with him as Tees Mayor's legal case heads to court

The legal case is due to take place at the High Court this October, after the judge examining the evidence determined a four-week hearing was needed instead of the two weeks that were originally scheduled for it.

Action was pursued by STDC and its subsidiary company South Tees Developments Ltd (STDL) after the completion of a compulsory purchase order (CPO) of land including the former Redcar steelworks that’s adjacent to Teesport docks, which are owned by PD Ports.

Historically, PD Ports has had access across parts of this land to its own holdings - such as the quayside at Redcar Bulk Terminal, and the tip of the South Gare where it has a lighthouse - in order to conduct its duties as the statutory harbour authority.

Statutory harbour authorities exist by law to manage all marine traffic in a given area, and to maintain pilot vessels, channel depths, lighthouses and so on. Should any of PD Ports’s defences of their rights to access fail - which include an access arrangement dating back to 1917 - their rights to access are protected by their statutory status.

Ben Houchen has stated that the legal action is not to claim any monetary gain, but to simply determine the rights on land STDC bought via CPO in April 2020.

“Irrespective of the outcome, PD Ports has no need to pay for any access,” Calje tells The Yorkshire Post. “The best possible financial outcome for the STDC would be to revert to the position it was in before it chose to proceed with this litigation where we had provided a nil cost solution to its access and title problems, without substantial seven figure legal costs being incurred by the taxpayer.”

When Calje mentions STDC’s “access problems”, he is referring to the fact that the parcel of land owned by STDC at South Bank Quay - location of the first phase of redevelopment at the 4,500 acre Teesworks site - can only be accessed via private roads that are owned by PD Ports.

Calje laments the fact that both parties are at loggerheads over something so seemingly trivial, particularly given their similar aims.

“It is disappointing that this legal action has been instigated by STDC,” he says. “This action is unnecessary and costly for the taxpayer. The purpose of this public body is to support economic growth and job creation and organisations such as PD Ports. Based on our demonstrable track record we feel the STDC should be working with PD Ports rather than pursuing litigation against the largest private employer in the Tees Valley.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for STDC said: “It has always been the position of STDC that neither party can move forward in a state of uncertainty, not least because STDC is actively redeveloping the sites at South Bank and Redcar and the pre-existing road network is being removed to make way for investors.”

They say that if it’s determined by the court that PD Ports does not have access rights across its land, that STDC will still provide them in their redevelopment plans, but that they “have a legal duty to achieve best value for what is the provision of an interest in land.”