DIBDEN BAY INQUIRY: DAYS 71-80

"UNREALISTIC, unproven, insufficient, impractical, questionable". These are just some of the critical adjectives fired at Associated British Ports over its plans for rail access to a new Dibden Bay container terminal.

As the public inquiry into ABP's scheme to expand into virgin territory at Dibden Bay reached Day 71, Hampshire County Council's train expert Jeremy Thorne pulled no punches in his assessment of their rail study.

ABP would need a good proportion of containers arriving at their new terminal to continue their journey upcountry by freight train instead of adding to road congestion.

But Mr Thorne said: "The information provided by ABP is insufficient to form a comprehensive opinion on the probable availability of freight train paths. Their sample times remain unproven as they only cover short sections.

"It is unrealistic of ABP to adopt the present passenger and freight timetable as a basis to project the ability of the network to handle traffic 13 years hence."

ABP reckon that up to 35 per cent of a Dibden Bay Terminal's transport needs would have to be met by rail, to fit in with their calculations for minimising the impact of the scheme on road traffic.

"A 35 per cent split for rail traffic is over-optimistic," said Mr Thorne. "A more robust assumption would be 25 to 30 per cent."

Totton and Eling town council had some new figures for ABP too. ABP have offered £1.5m-worth of local road improvements to make up for the Junction Road level crossing in the middle of Totton potentially being closed for an extra nine minutes per hour because of long freight trains from Dibden Bay.

But Totton's planning officer Roger Hill said: "We think at least £3m should come from ABP if their scheme goes through.

"Totton's town centre improvement plan is not yet released but it will cost about £45m in all. A contribution of £1.5m is just not enough.

"Residents' patience with the level crossing is already pushed to its limits. Few would be satisfied with no change to the present situation. Most would prefer a new traffic-pedestrian bridge or underpass as a solution."

DAY 72: '£10m a year' would compensate town

CAMPAIGNERS in Totton are raising the stakes dramatically over their demands for cash compensation if plans for a new dock go ahead.

On Tuesday, the town council's planning officer Roger Hill told the public inquiry into plans for a new container terminal between Hythe and Marchwood that "£3m should come from ABP if its scheme goes through."

But when the inquiry into the plans by ABP continued yesterday, New Forest councillor and Rushington Manor Residents' Association secretary Bill Catt suggested a more appropriate figure would be £10m a year.

He warned of the way the town will be even more acutely split by extra trains going over its level crossing.

If the scheme went ahead, he said, Totton would be "entitled to a considerable gain."

He explained: "All towns are trying to improve their environment. Totton is a transport key - road and rail. About £10m a year for the next 50 years for ourselves in Totton to solve any problems might start to be acceptable - and we want it in advance."

Another of Totton's district councillors, Robin Harrison, also expressed fears over the amount of time the level crossing gates in Junction Road would be closed for the additional trains generated by the port.

He suggested "very substantial" funds for environmental improvements in the Junction Road area, but did not mention a figure.

Hampshire county councillor Edith Randall was unable to attend the inquiry because of an arm injury, but in a statement read by Mr Hill, she referred both to the impact of trains and on the number of extra vehicles on roads past the town.

With unemployment in the area low, she said: "It follows that potential employees will have to travel some distance to reach Dibden Bay."

That that would add considerably to noise nuisance for her residents.

Fears were also expressed on the impact on nearby March-wood by its district and parish councillor Nick Smith.

He referred to the likelihood that road improvements would be needed and to an agreement by ABP to carry out surveys every three weeks after the port is operational.

With three years needed before the first surveys, an estimated three years for any finance and detail of a scheme to be worked out and three years for the construction phase, he said: "We are looking at nine years of misery before anything can be done.''

Day 73: Fears of knock-on congestion

COUNCILS and environmental groups have warned that a new dock at Dibden Bay will have a major knock-on effect on roads right out through the countryside of Hampshire and Wiltshire.

The public inquiry in Southampton into Associated British Ports' plans for a container terminal at Dibden Bay was yesterday told that towns and cities including Romsey and Salisbury could face more lorries and more congestion.

Test Valley Borough Council planning officer David Bibby said his council did not object in principle to the scheme, but "has serious concerns regarding the potential implications for Test Valley and its residents which may result".

As well as being worried about the effect the dock would have on salmon in the River Test, which runs through its district, he said the council was calling for measures to keep the heavy goods vehicles to the major roads on the strategic road network.

The A3057 between Romsey and Stockbridge, he said, was so narrow in places that "HGVs cannot pass each other and cars are only able to pass an HGV if one of them is stationary".

Mr Bibby asked for Test Valley to be consulted on the details of a proposed lorry-routing agreement and freight quality partnership and was given an assurance that it would be.

Salisbury's fears were summed up in a joint statement by the city's Friends of the Earth and Salisbury Transport 2000.

It warned of predictions of an extra 204 HGVs per 24-hour day on the A36.

The groups were also disappointed that none of the container freight for the south-west and South Wales was likely to go by rail.

Although plans for a Salisbury Bypass were cancelled in 1997, it suggested that the extra traffic in and around Salisbury was "likely to be used as ammunition by local authorities to justify further environmentally destructive road schemes around Salisbury and along the A36 corridor."

The village of Godshill also voiced its opposition. Speaking for the parish council, Councillor Ann Cakebread suggested that all hauliers could see was that the minor roads offered short cuts and avoided traffic jams on designated lorry routes.

She added: "It is horrible to see a vast lorry at a full 40mph passing within a couple of yards of a cottage built in the 16th century. The road surface is inadequate to bear the weight of 40-tonne trucks, so it gives way and becomes very bumpy."

The inquiry resumes on Tuesday.

Day 74 - Fears for air quality are misplaced

AN air quality expert says there is no reason for objectors to kick up a stink over possible dust pollution.

Dr Duncan Laxen has been studying the possible impact of the planned development on behalf of Associated British Ports since 1997.

Thirteen major objectors to ABP's scheme for Dibden Bay have made the danger to air quality one of their main bones of contention.

But Dr Laxen - 30 years an environmental scientist - said he could find "no air quality grounds" for blocking the £750m development.

Hythe and Dibden Parish Council have expressed concerns about "unacceptable levels of dust and smell" during the development of the port .

Hythe Marina Association had warned that the creek proposed as part of the development would "result in odour" and they also feared the effects of dust.

The Environment Agency was worried about additional sulphur dioxide emissions from shipping.

The Council for National Parks said that increased vehicle pollution as a result of traffic to and from the terminal would endanger rare lichens in Heritage Area woodlands.

But in his report, Dr Laxen said: "Dust soiling would be insignificant, and the odour risk from the Creek would be very slight at Hythe Marina.

"There may be some temporary dust impacts of minor significance during construction, but only close to the terminal itself."

He added that additional traffic caused by the port would not be expected to create unacceptable air quality for residents living close to affected roads.

"A detailed air quality assessment has been carried out.

"It shows existing air quality is generally good, and will improve due to tighter emissions standards," said Dr Laxen.

The inquiry is now in recess to give inspector Michael Hurley and his deputy Andrew Phillipson a chance to catch up on paperwork.

Topic 11 beginning on July 16 will be Landscape and Visual Impact.

Day 75 - Expert says cranes would improve view

DIBDEN Bay is flat, featureless and unremarkable and does not deserve to be in the proposed New Forest National Park - so said a landscape expert at the mammoth inquiry into plans to build a container port on the site.

The hearing at Southampton's Eastern Docks entered its 75th day by launching Topic 11-Landscape and Visual Impact of Associated British Port's scheme for a £750m terminal covering more than 200 hectares of open coastline on Southampton Water.

In the hot seat this week is strategic landscape planner Martin Kelly.

Mr Kelly was unimpressed by any claims that Dibden Bay was a haven for wildlife and nature lovers.

"The Dibden reclaim is man-made land devoid of visually significant vegetation, open, flat and featureless," said Mr Kelly.

"Its physical condition is poor, no topsoil other than a thin organic layer.

"It does not exhibit any key characteristics associated with the New Forest.

"I found it somewhat surprising that the Countryside Agency should propose including Dibden Reclaim within the proposed national park.

"The reclaim fails to meet the two main criteria required for its inclusion - natural beauty and opportunities for recreation," said Mr Kelly, who has been studying the proposals on ABP's behalf for six years.

However, he thought the Bay scored highly as a potential site for port development.

"The location is ideal - sited in a broad valley which provides a remarkably discreet setting.

"The man-made landscape was created specifically for port use and is a suitably flat site in proximity to necessary modes of transportation," said Mr Kelly.

He reminded objectors that, added to the natural screening, ABP's planned buffer zone - with its creek and raised bund - would further shield residents in Marchwood and Hythe from views of the port.

He said: "The biggest visual impact will be from the Southampton side, and we have had fewest objections from Southampton residents.

"The siting of the terminal close to the city would positively contribute to Southampton's urban design strategy - key features of which are tall iconic architecture and the creation of a modern international gateway.

"Tall structures will be needed at the new port, especially cranes, but they will add interest and vitality to the estuary scene.

"Most residents in the area are familiar with waterside development and the Dibden Bay terminal will reinforce the exciting and dynamic appearance of Southampton Docks."

But local resident Phil Henderson, spokesman for Residents Against Dibden Bay Port, begged to differ,.

He said that Mr Kelly was wrong to think that huge 370ft cranes were full of interest and vitality and an asset to anyone's view.

Ramblers' Association spokeswoman Emily Richmond said: "The proposed development will seriously damage the views of the New Forest from Southampton Water, and turn the Bay from a countryside scene to an industrial landscape."

Day 76 - ABP seeks to play down 'fear factor'

SOUTHAMPTON docks operator Associated British Ports (ABP) has continued its battle to convince a public inquiry in Southampton that a huge container terminal at Dibden Bay will not look as imposing as some people fear.

At the public inquiry into the Terminal proposals, Hampshire County and New Forest District Council barrister Graham Keen suggested to ABP landscape architect Martin Kelly that there would be a "significant" visual impact from the main A326 road, which will run past the bay and provide its chief route of road access.

But Mr Kelly insisted: "No, it is the upper parts of the cranes only which will be seen."

He did accept that there would be "substantial impact" from the upper part of Dibden Golf Course, where golfers have a wide panoramic view of Southampton Water.

But he suggested that in other areas, including the nearby village centre conservation area at Hythe, the cranes - which will have a height of around 370 feet - will be less noticeable.

Mr Kelly also refused to accept a contention by Mr Keen that Dibden Bay would be a "very urban solution in a rural setting."

He said: "No, I don't think I can accept that. The A326 is a major road and sections of it include lighting."

He did, however, agree that there would be "some extra lighting along some of the lengths of it, although not on all of it."

Mr Kelly was also quizzed yesterday over the noise barriers and the planting of vegetation alongside the railway track, which is set to take over 40 train movements every day.

The inquiry's deputy inspector Andrew Phillipson took issue over restrictions on the planting of screening vegetation close to the barriers or close to the railway line.

He said: "I understand that Railtrack have a policy that if it's within five metres they will remove it, and if it is beyond five metres, they will not encourage it.

But he was told by ABP's QC Martin Kingston: "Outside the five metres, the principle of what we are proposing would not, from Railtrack's point of view, provide any difficulty."

Inquiry inspector Michael Hurley also recalled that Railtrack had objected to the planning application for the noise barriers and had even indicated that if they were approved, they would not have them on their land because of maintenance and safety requirements.

Mr Kingston indicated that negotiations on that aspect of the scheme had not ended.

DAY 77: Terminal loss of views for marina users

ASSOCIATED British Ports' landscaping consultant Martin Kelly yesterday conceded there would be a "substantial and adverse" visual impact for people living near the proposed Dibden Terminal.

Mr Kelly had suggested in his earlier evidence that the bay wasn't particularly special to look at and he disputed suggestions that the port and all its cranes would do considerable damage.

But at the continuing public inquiry, Hythe Marina Village barrister Tom Hill outlined the present setting of the green pasture land fronting the Bay, a view which was enjoyed by marina residents and users.

He asked: "Do you accept that the visual impact of this site as a major container terminal would be substantial and adverse?"

Mr Kelly replied: "This particular view would not exist. I think that is acknowledged."

Mr Hill also continued that if a port was developed, the huge ships which at present pass the marina 500 metres away would suddenly be 400 metres nearer.

"Yes," Mr Kelly said, "there would be a greater appearance of vessels."

But he also pointed out that on his frequent visits to Hythe Marina Village he had often seen people looking at ships and taking photographs of them.

But when he said they would become "potentially slightly closer," Mr Hill hit back: "Potentially slightly closer? It would be 100 metres."

Mr Hill had earlier contended that the terminal would dominate its surroundings which is on the edge of the New Forest Heritage area.

But Mr Kelly said that while there might be impact in the waterfront areas, it would be minimised in the Forest by existing woodlands, the planting of new trees and the general landscaping package.

DAY 78: Dim view of claims

A LIGHTING expert has rejected claims that the planned £750m port at Dibden Bay will have a disastrous impact on the area at night.

Nigel Pollard said floodlighting at the six-berth terminal between Hythe and Marchwood would have only a "minimal" effect on the neighbouring New Forest.

Mr Pollard stressed that Dibden Bay itself was already affected at night by the lights of Southampton, Hythe and Totton.

He was giving evidence at the public inquiry into plans by Associated British Ports (ABP) to redevelop reclaimed coastline north of Hythe Marina.

Cross-examined by opponents of the scheme, he dismissed suggestions that the port's powerful lighting would have a "massive" impact on the area.

Mr Pollard, an independent lighting consultant, is a Fellow of the Institution of Lighting Engineers and a member of the Society of Light and Lighting.

In 1997 he was appointed to design a lighting scheme for the Dibden Bay terminal and carry out an assessment of its likely impact.

Critics of the proposed port have cited a long list of environmental concerns, including the possibility of light pollution.

Mr Pollard denies that ABP has played down the potential impact of the floodlights.

He told the inquiry: "The lighting installation will be of considerable size. However it is strongly disputed that its impact has been under-estimated.

"Little if any light will trespass out of the site boundaries. While the land itself is situated in a predominantly unlit area it is not a dark landscape."

DAY 79: DIBDEN BAY DESCENDS INTO FARCE

THE battle of Dibden Bay descended into farce last night.

Green campaigners claimed a report by a group of councils in the south blows the case for a huge new £700m container terminal opposite Southampton out of the water.

But Southampton City Council - a member of the South East and Anglian Ports Local Authority Group that produced the study - says it should not have been published.

City chiefs say they were not consulted on the "final" report and believe it contains errors and statements that are not backed up by facts.

They are worried it could be used at the long-running public inquiry into the issue that started in November 2001.

The Seaports report fails to back Southampton port's expansion on to the Waterside saying development of a new container terminal at Felixstowe in Suffolk and Shell Haven on the Thames estuary would be better.

It refers to the potential damage to the environment and the impact on the proposed New Forest National Park.

Researchers also states that arguing the Dibden Bay development would lead to an economic regeneration of the Southampton area is "not straightforward."

They claim to have consulted Southampton City Council, Southampton Port Consultative Committee, Southampton Container Terminals and Associated British Ports, the firm that wants to build Dibden Bay, to reach their conclusions.

New calls were made today for plans for a huge new dock at Dibden Bay to be dropped.

Friends of the Earth's south east regional campaigns co-ordinator Amanda Bruce said Dibden Bay was "seriously undermined" by the report.

She said: "ABP should withdraw its uneconomic and damaging plans for Dibden immediately."

But Southampton City Council's environment and transport cabinet member Richard Williams said: "Port development at any location needs careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages.

"The public inquiry currently under way over plans for development at Dibden Bay is looking at a wealth of detailed evidence from all parties and I have every confidence a balanced judgement will be reached.

"So it is very sad and disappointing when material appears to be rushed into the public domain without the authors even having the courtesy to consult all members of the group.

"Southampton City Council and others have not had a chance to comment on this final report and we are concerned it could be used to distort port development in the south."

Associated British Ports, the owners and operators of Southampton Docks, wants to develop Dibden Bay because it believes it must expand if the city is the stay as one of Europe's leading ports.

It maintains the scheme will play a key role in the both the local and national economy.

DAY 80: Dibden impact 'maximised'

NEW Forest District Council has been accused of putting the very maximum emphasis on the impact of Dibden Bay on its surrounding landscape.

The public inquiry into plans for a container terminal at the Bay heard continuing evidence that it would be seen as far away as Pepperbox Hill in Wiltshire.

Martin Kingston, QC for Southampton Docks owner Associated British Ports which wants to build the terminal, was clearly unhappy that a Pepperbox impact had been included at all.

Under Mr Kingston's cross examination, district council landscape architect Neil Williamson insisted: "There would be some impact."

Mr Kingston then suggested: "Your approach to this matter was that in circumstances where there was any doubt, the benefit of the doubt went in favour of certain impact, didn't it?"

But Mr Williamson said: "I stand by my assessment."

As Mr Kingston continued to question his judgement, Mr Williamson said: "There was no doubt in my mind.''