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.
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