Dibden Bay battle begins in earnest

The council lost no time in telling a tense audience of around 350 people at the Applemore Recreation Centre, near Hythe, that the city needs the new container terminal which Associated British Ports (ABP) wants to build at Dibden Bay.

Yesterday, on the first day of the public inquiry into the £500m proposal, John Hobson, QC, putting the case for the council, accepted that there were problems relating to environmental considerations.

In pointing out that they could generally be overcome, he said: "The council is satisfied that there is a demonstrable and overwhelming need, and that this need outweighs the impacts of the scheme, taking into account the measures that are proposed to offset those impacts."

Mr Hobson referred to the way the city had adapted to changing circumstances through its 700-year history and had become second only to Felixstowe as a UK container port in terms of its volume.

Referring to a possible 2,000 jobs being created at Dibden, he said: "The failure to permit the expansion of the port would not only mean that these significant additional employment figures would be foregone; it would have very serious consequences for the city of Southampton and the wider region.

"If the Port of Southampton is not permitted to expand, it will decline and the order of its decline will be great indeed, with a predicted range of between 20 per cent to 50 per cent."

On the question of the damage to nature conservation, he pointed to ABP's mitigation measures, which include an inter-tidal feeding habit for birds between Hythe and Fawley where the dredgings from the port development would be used to raise the land level, an inter-tidal creek between the bay and Hythe Marina and the creation of additional wetland habitats.

On the question of traffic, Mr Hobson said it was the view of Southampton's consultants that the development "should have no impact within the city council's area".

"Outside that area, the main impact is likely to be on Junction 3 of the M27, where improvement works might be necessary," he said. ABP is planning to make major use of the Fawley branch line, with 35 per cent of the Dibden Bay goods taken out by rail and 65 per cent by road.

Mr Hobson said: "The city council's consultants, Oscar Faber, has advised that, with some improvement, there is sufficient capacity on the Fawley branch line to accommodate the additional freight traffic that would be involved."

ABP counsel Martin Kingston highlighted the national importance of the proposed development.

Asked about Southampton's own economy, he said the city had suffered socially and economically through the decline of manufacturing industries.

If the expansion was not approved it would send the city into a period of stagnation and decline which would exacerbate those problems.

In fending off suggestions that there was ample capacity elsewhere in the country, he said full capacity was likely to be taken up by 2005 and that there was no room for expansion on the Southampton side of Southampton Water.

He also referred to shortcomings at other ports which were to be built or extended, with dredging needed in some areas and full assessments not yet completed.

On the question of the recent designation of Dibden Bay as a site of specific scientific interest, he said ABP would be making "appropriate representations" and would, he said, be able to demonstrate that the proposals would have no adverse effect".

The speaker who captured the imagination of an audience, comprising mainly opponents of the scheme, was Totton's Hampshire county councillor Edith Randall.

After her outline of the problems surrounding Totton in general and its level crossings - at Junction Road and Hounsdown in particular - she earned a rousing burst of applause which in turn earned the audience a rap over the knuckles by inquiry inspector Michael Hurley.

"I will not allow applause, jeers or catcalls from the audience during the course of this inquiry, said Mr Hurley, who was sporting a wry smile at the time.

Mrs Randall had pointed out that the notorious Totton level crossing in Junction Road was already closed nine-and-a-half minutes in every half hour and carried tenpassenger and 16 freight trains daily.

"Totton is not part of Southampton and if the port of Southampton wishes to expand, they should be looking at more appropriate land which they own within the city," she said.

The local authorities battling against the new terminal have warned that residents will have to put up with a range of noise and light pollution problems and thousands of birds will lose their homes.

New Forest and Hampshire councils' QC Richard Drabble said: "The impact on local communities will be significant and adverse."

He pointed out that the terminal would operate 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year and that the construction work would last nine years.

He warned of the impact of pile-driving for the sea wall of an 1,800 metre quay wall, as well as noise from port operations, the generators of the ships and night-time trains.

On damage to the landscape, Mr Drabble predicted: "The scale, height and mass of the terminal and its infrastructure would be in sharp contrast to the adjoining settlement pattern and indeed and is even greater in extent than the terminal on the Eastern side of the estuary.

"It would destroy a valuable undeveloped part of the New Forest coast and the character of that part of the New Forest and adjoining settlements would be severely affected," he said.

Mr Drabble also pointed out that the county and district councils felt the A326 road linking the port with the motorway network could not cope with the increased level of traffic.

He contended that ABP had underestimated the impact of the floodlighting at the terminal.

On threats to the bird populations, he quoted the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and English Nature which said it was possible that thousands could be displaced from their wading and feeding grounds if plans to coax them to nearby areas were not successful.