"FEELINGS are very strong, but everyone has behaved in a civilised and courteous way - and I'm grateful for that."

With these words, one of the biggest public inquiries ever held in the south was drawn to a close by government planning inspector Michael Hurley yesterday.

Witnesses and QCs have spent the past 13 months arguing over controversial proposals to build a £750m container terminal at Dibden Bay.

Associated British Ports want to construct a six-berth complex on reclaimed coastline between Hythe and Marchwood - an area rich in wildlife.

Speakers at the marathon inquiry, which has cost ABP in the region of £30m examined every aspect of the scheme.

Much of the debate centred on whether a new port was necessary and how much damage it would inflict on the environment. The main objectors comprised an awesome array of environmental heavyweights, including English Nature, the Environment Agency, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

ABP produced an equally impressive set of experts who highlighted the need for a new port and played down the threat to local birds. Much of the evidence was expressed in scientific terms intelligible only to experts in specialised fields such as the erosion and deposition of sediment.

Each day of the inquiry resulted in a 250-page transcript that gave a blow-by-blow account of the unfolding debate.

On Tuesday, Martin Kingston QC, representing ABP, referred to his mammoth 479-page closing statement as "War and Peace Part 2".

Richard Drabble QC, representing Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council, had delivered his 240-page submission the day before.

The hearing finally finished at 4.28pm yesterday - 24 hours earlier than forecast.

Now Mr Hurley will have to review all the evidence and submit a report recommending the government to approve or reject the scheme.

Transport secretary, Alistair Darling, will have the final say - but it is likely to be at least ten months before he has a chance to study the inspector' conclusions. The target is the end of October.

The last speaker to address the inquiry was Mr Kingston, who spoke on a variety of topics, including the amount of noise and vibration likely to be produced by the proposed port.

He said: "The evidence shows how wrong objectors are in their sometimes wild and alarmist assertions. The proposed Dibden Terminal is certainly a substantial development and will take many years to construct, but it can be constructed and operated in accordance with the most up to date standards."

Mr Kingston also criticised the Countryside Agency over its decision to include Dibden Bay in the proposed New Forest National Park. He said: "The agency has operated in the face of all the evidence to produce a boundary which has less to do with defining a National Park and more to do with attempts to defeat the Dibden Terminal proposal."

Mr Kingston said lack of capacity meant UK trade was in danger of being serviced from European ports.

He added: "There is no sound legal or planning reason why the Dibden Terminal should not be approved to the universal benefit of Southampton, the region and the UK as a whole."

However, Leaders of Residents against Dibden Bay Port (RADBP) were jubilant last week after the rival port of Felixstowe unveiled a massive expansion plan which they said left the Dibden Bay scheme "dead in the water".

Yesterday, RADBP chairman Paul Vickers disputed the need for a new terminal at Dibden Bay. "If the need is imminent - as ABP are saying - why has the company asked for a ten-year window in which to start the project?"

Asked if objectors had won the battle he said: "We have won, absolutely. There are no standards left in Britain if we haven't."