THE PEOPLE'S pressure group Residents Against Dibden Bay Port showed its muscle yesterday when its members left standing room only at the public inquiry into the scheme for a new container terminal on the south side of Southampton Water.

Outside the building at Southampton's Eastern Docks - which has housed the inquiry for most of the past year - Friends of the Earth supporters carrying placards and wearing bird costumes added their weight to the anti-Dibden Bay Port bandwagon.

Inside, spokesmen for the two organisations, plus representatives of Totton and Eling Town Council, the National Trust, Hythe and Dibden Parish Council and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, hammered home their various messages which from every angle said "No Way to Dibden Bay".

As reported in later editions of yesterday's Daily Echo, Totton council spokesman Roger Hill was first to deliver his summing-up to the inspector, Michael Hurley. He focused on the effects that Associated British Ports' new development would have on the Junction Road level crossing in his town.

"At present the crossing is closed 33 per cent of the time. Extra trains needed by the port would mean closure for 46 per cent of the time - in the middle of a town centre where residents' patience with the problems of the crossing is already pushed to the limits," said Mr Hill.

For FoE, New Forest officer Julia Astin called on the inspector to remind the government "just how special the New Forest is," and how the port would "destroy the sense of tranquillity" of the area.

Paul Vickers, for Residents Against Dibden Bay Port (RADBP) took more than two hours to deliver a multi-pronged attack on ABP's plans.

"ABP is not a philanthropic company seeking to develop Dibden Bay in order to save the trading nation of Britain. It is motivated by the need to make profits for shareholders," he said.

"Dibden Bay represents the largest parcel of land in its ownership which it is not in a position to develop. The container port argument is a convenient ruse."

He argued that the huge amount which ABP would have to borrow to finance the project - an estimated £750m - would make it easy for other ports to undercut the new port, threatening the entire viability of the scheme. Another cost impact highlighted by Mr Vickers was the £1 billion needed to upgrade railway links if the development went ahead.

"One wonders if ABP ever consulted with the Strategic Rail Authority," he said.

But the crux of Mr Vickers' argument was the human impact of the planned port.

"What standards does the UK want for preserving the environment for the future and maintaining quality of life in our communities?" he said.

Outside the hearing, fellow RADBP supporter Phil Henderson warned that feelings among local people were running so strongly against the port, that the fight would go on, even if ABP's plan got the government go-ahead.

"We have worked against this for four years. Waterside residents will never accept the port. We will go to Europe if needed.

"We have been in touch with the European Commission already," he said.