NONE of the major port expansion schemes rivalling Dibden Bay have the permission they need to go ahead, a public inquiry heard yesterday.

The scheme by Southampton Docks owner Associated British Ports for a huge new container terminal between Marchwood and Hythe has sparked numerous claims that it is not necessary.

The objectors include Hampshire County and New Forest District Councils, and their witnesses have named other ports where expansion is planned.

Those sites include Bathside Bay at Harwich, London Gateway on the Thames Estuary and Thamesport at the Isle of Grain on the north Kent coast.

The county and district witnesses are also referring to increased efficiency and through-put at existing ports including Southampton and Felixstowe.

But under cross examination at the continuing inquiry in Southampton's Eastern Docks yesterday, Hampshire County Council project manager Tony Cook agreed that none of the other schemes had all the necessary official approvals they needed to enable them to go ahead.

In answer to a succession of questions from ABP barrister Martin Kingston, he conceded that even at Bathside Bay, which had overall approval under a Parliamentary Act of 1988, still had an issue to be settled.

He agreed that the tidal part of the scheme, involving the building of a sea wall and the reclamation of 72 hectares of land still needed approval.

ABP is contending that other sites cannot be considered as viable alternatives unless they have full planning permission to go ahead.

Mr Cook was asked repeatedly by Mr Kingston to clarify whether the Bathside scheme could go ahead without further approval.

He said a legal point was being debated and added: "I would not see the situation as being totally clear."

Bathside Bay, he predicted, was "obviously a site that will be developed."

He had earlier emphasised the difficulties of comparing the different schemes as being like trying to compare "apples and pears".

Mr Kingston had also made the point that Dibden Bay was not the only scheme which relied on the reclamation of land from the area for its progress.

He quizzed Mr Cook on the planned 72 hectares of reclamation at Bathside and 92 from the Thames at London Gateway, which has previously been referred to at Shell Haven.

Earlier, Mr Cook had referred to a government report suggesting making the best use of the existing facilities and added: "Improved output at Felixstowe, Thamesport and Southampton should be accepted as a priority solution.

"I would conclude that in planning terms, there are other major projects apart from Dibden Bay which could fulfil the national requirement for container handling capacity for a considerable number of years."

The other sites, he said, "would seem to represent more appropriate development solutions".

They were more consistent with planning policies as they used existing permissions or, mostly, previously developed land including redundant oil refineries at London Gateway and Thamesport.

"They involve better use of existing infrastructure, have less environmental impact, possibly have greater economic benefits and have better accessibility than Dibden Bay," he said, adding that London Gateway and Bathside Bay should be undertaken first.

Dibden Bay, he said, was in a strategic gap of countryside between Hythe and Marchwood and it was included in the proposed boundary for the New Forest National Park. He also reflected that it was the closest scheme to existing housing.

Later, planning consultant Stephen Cork, outlined alternative ways of providing increased capacity without building Dibden Bay. He suggested the use of alternative container handling equipment which could increase the height of the container stacks by between 50 and 60 per cent.

Southampton Container Terminals, which runs the container handling operation, was approaching its capacity on the Southampton side of the River Test estuary, and was restricted by the availability of land there.

But he suggested a re-shaping of a two-berth area once built for containers but now used for vehicle imports and exports.

"A new quay line could be constructed slightly forward if the existing quay line permitting a greater dredge depth at the quay," he said.

"The car imports," he suggested, "be handled elsewhere within the existing port area. "The sort of choices that need to be made by ABP in deciding whether to close or move facilities is demonstrated in that ABP is investing in new multi-level car storage facilities already in the Eastern Docks."

Restoring Western Dock berths to containers would, he conceded, only create a single berth for the big deep sea vessels, it could be used initially by smaller craft without the need for a new sea wall.