New Forest National Park Inquiry: Day 29

THE ARMY'S top man at Marchwood military port has appealed for the zone around the UK's main defence supply dock to be excluded from the proposed New Forest National Park - to safeguard its vital security role.

As headlines warn of terrorist alerts and preparations build for possible war with Iraq, the words of Colonel Nigel Lloyd held a special relevance as he addressed the public inquiry into the park plan.

"Marchwood military port is the only one of its kind. It has national and international significance as a worldwide defence distribution gateway," said Col Lloyd.

"My fear is losing the flexibility I need, if any part of this MoD site is included in the national park."

He said the land in question, just south of Marchwood, was outside the port's five mile long perimeter fence, and has been used for back-up grazing in the past. But he added that it had an important part to play as a buffer zone between port and public, and as rough terrain for training soldiers.

"We need to be able to manage the whole site the way we want to. I must have the flexibility to maximise and develop the military utility of all available real estate," said Col Lloyd.

"Restrictions by virtue of the site's inclusion in the national park would impact on the port's unique and specific training capability and our development plans. It could make us less responsive to future strategic needs."

In support of Col Lloyd, landscape expert Brian Denney told the inquiry that a more suitable boundary for the National Park lies south of the objection site, on a wooded ridge which partly screens the military port.

"Defence Estates would be prepared to enhance the vegetation along this natural boundary to ensure the longevity of existing hedgerow features," said Mr Denney.

But Kate Collins, for the Countryside Agency which has drawn up the national park proposals, said land ownership and the needs of the Military Port had not been part of their decision-making.

"These are not material considerations in defining any part of a national park boundary," she said.

"Since the objection land is already part of the New Forest Heritage Area, which is treated as equivalent to a national park in planning terms, the potential for future development would be unchanged.

"This land to the south of Marchwood has been included because it is high quality landscape. It is also potentially suitable for back-up grazing. There are no grounds for its exclusion."

Proceeding.