THEY called him an enthusiastic amateur. But not only did Paul Vickers take on the legal might of Associated British Ports' barristers, he is now celebrating a victory which many people believe he was instrumental in achieving.

It turned out ABP's ill-informed judgement of Mr Vickers was fundamentally flawed.

In fact, far from being an amateur, the Hythe Marina resident was the then director of a multi-million-pound international water treatment company.

For Mr Vickers, as chairman of Residents Against Dibden Bay Port, was about to set a powerful precedent.

Not once during the six-year campaign to protect the Dibden wildlife retreat was there a hint of inappropriate behaviour from RADBP, a fact for which they were praised by inquiry inspector Michael Hurley.

There were no Swampies digging tunnels under the beauty spot, no bawdy protests and no outbursts from the public gallery while the inquiry sat.

Instead its campaign relied on the decimation of ABP's bid by the slick application of expertise, provided free-of-charge by high-powered Waterside residents opposed to plans to destroy their countryside.

"We set out to be as professional as ABP," recalls Mr Vickers.

"At the close of the inquiry that was one of the comments made by the inspector - that we had behaved in a very professional manner.

"I don't think an inspector has ever said that to a residents' group before.

"We could have been banner-waving Greenpeace types, but he acknowledged that we had been as professional as everybody else.

"We never entered into any devious activities.

"We were always articulate and professional.

"My view from the outset was that there were a lot of clever people in the Waterside so there must be an expert for everything - which turned out to be the case."

But how did the 54-year-old family man come to spearhead the campaign?

"I was at a public meeting at Noadswood School. There wasn't enough room for everyone in it. During the meeting I stood up and said one of the ways to kill a bad project is to find a better one.

"Because I stood up and made a suggestion I was approached after the meeting by a group of people who said, 'We don't know what to do. Would you become the chairman for six months?' That was six years ago."

Mr Vickers had told the meeting a former oil refinery would make an ideal alternative site for a container port - such as the Shellhaven plant in Essex.

Little did he know Shellhaven was facing imminent closure.

But as soon as he found out, he travelled to Essex and urged MP for Basildon, Angela Smith, to lobby for a container port to replace the redundant refinery.

Six years on, Shell Oil and P&O are waiting for another public inquiry to give the go-ahead on the project.

The more Mr Vickers fed his curiosity in the Dibden Bay inquiry, the more ruthless RADBP's campaign to destroy the plans for the terminal became.

He points out how they exposed the claim that Southampton Container Terminals saw 50,000 shipping movements every year - equivalent to 150 ships going in and out of the port every day.

Investigations by Mr Vickers' team revealed the claim was true - but 38,000 of the reported movements were made by the Isle of Wight ferry.

Container vessels, it emerged, were responsible for just two movements a day.

As Mr Vickers searched for depth in ABP's application he realised, he claims, that it was paper-thin.

"It started off as a bit of a curiosity. I wanted to understand what was going on so I started delving into the economics. I got to the point where I felt I was being conned by ABP and then I got annoyed.

"It went from being a hobby to being a full-time job and then an obsession. The more I started to learn about it the more I felt it was so unreasonable.

"When I went to the inquiry I thought to myself: I've been educated by Esso. I know about multi-million-pound projects. I know how to assess if they are good projects.

"I looked at ABP's project and thought this won't work. Then we set out to get more evidence to prove it.

"I set up a huge network of people to give us information - people in ports, in shipping companies, in environmental groups."

Mr Vickers believes all the work paid off.

He is quick to point out that environmental concerns were not the only reasons listed by Mr Hurley for scrapping the development bid.

In his summary, the inspector said ABP had failed to prove the new port would be economically viable or that the future of Southampton's shipping industry would be damaged without it.

Not one single public body had spoken out in favour of a terminal at Dibden apart from Southampton City Council, he also noted.

Safe in the knowledge that the future of the land has been safeguarded, Mr Vickers feels vindicated.

"This is a momentous event that I'll carry forever like my wedding day or the birth of my daughter.

"It really is a great achievement and probably better than a lot of other things I've done in my life, when I'm honest about it."

And what now for the civic-minded gentleman campaigner?

"People have said I should write a book on how to campaign in a professional way, but I think I need a rest for a while."

Gazing at the sea through the window of his Hythe Marina home he adds: "I think I'm going to spend the summer sailing."