PLANNING and transport experts took an in-depth look at the south's deep-water ports at the Dibden Bay public inquiry yesterday.
More than 30 members of the public made their way to Southampton's Eastern Docks to hear the day-long debate between shipping consultant Mike Garratt and Hampshire planning boss Tony Cook.
Mr Garratt of MDS Transmodal took the view that any delay in ABP's planned development of Dibden Bay into a container port would be against national interest.
But Mr Cook said other more suitable alternatives to Dibden Bay were emerging across the south and must be considered.
Mr Garratt, first into the hot seat, told inspector Michael Hurley: "Customers choose which port they use.
The national need for extra port capacity can only be met by individual ports being able to meet their own needs.
"ABP (Associated British Ports) owns 22 ports and its decision to invest in Southampton has been made with a thorough understanding of the city's need and wider potential."
Mr Garratt said the proposals for Dibden Bay would provide the Port of Southampton with sufficient capacity to attract even the world's largest ships.
He told the hearing that container vessels more than 400 metres long are presently under construction and would need a port with deep channels - like Southampton.
But he said alternative port expansion schemes in the pipeline - Shellhaven near Thurrock, Bathside Bay near Harwich and the Isle of Grain near Thamesport - all had problems which outweighed their advantages.
Mr Garratt said the Shellhaven scheme would need a major channel dredge to allow the new mega-ships in. He said Bathside Bay would need reclamation of inter-tidal areas, and the Isle of Grain is hampered by a shortage of road and rail capacity.
Another problem for Shellhaven, highlighted by Mr Garratt, would be extra pressure on trains.
"If capacity equivalent to that of the proposed Dibden terminal was located at Shellhaven, 53 extra freight trains per direction would be required from East Coast ports - triple the present number," he said. Such demands would substantially reduce the capacity to accommodate domestic or Channel Tunnel rail freight growth - a key element in government transport strategy."
Mr Garratt said that even if the proposed schemes on the Isle of Grain and Bathside went ahead, they would not save Dibden Bay.
"Extra capacity would be required in the UK by 2013, so construction of the Dibden terminal would have to begin by 2011 anyway," he said.
But Hampshire planner Tony Cook said a Dibden Bay terminal was the worst of the south's four options. He said:
Dibden Bay was closer to existing housing than Shellhaven, Bathside Bay or the Isle of Grain.
Dibden Bay would not create as many local jobs as the alternative sites.
Dibden Bay was not as well located for access to the motorway network as the other sites.
The other sites had rail connections while Dibden Bay would need a new link.
l At the other three sites, local plans permitted potential development and local authorities were largely in favour.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article