A FORMER Hampshire planning officer has warned that a new port between Hythe and Marchwood would cause more environmental damage than any of the UK's other new dock schemes.

Gerald Smart, who was at the helm of planning issues from 1963 to 1975, was speaking on behalf of the Solent Protection Society at the public inquiry into plans for a container terminal at Dibden Bay.

He said the society's main concerns were the impact on the coastal landscape, wildlife and recreation and that it believed there were alternative sites which were more suitable.

"There is no doubt in my mind that evidence on alternative sites should be considered at this inquiry," he said, referring to plans for Thamesport on the Isle of Grain, Shell Haven (London Gateway) at Tilbury and Bathside Bay at Harwich.

All, he said, had direct rail access of varying quality and there was road access to them as well, although some would need improvements.

"All would cause less environmental damage than Dibden Bay in terms of impacts on landscape and wildlife habitats, especially having regard to the New Forest National Park proposals, and are less likely to have adverse impacts on residential areas," he suggested.

Referring to national planning guidance and to evidence put forward at the inquiry by the local authorities and other organisations, he made a strong plea for the Dibden scheme to be rejected.

He told inquiry inspector Michael Hurley: "The Secretary of State should be advised not to approve the order and other statutory submissions unless he or she is satisfied that the development is absolutely essential in the national interest and that there are no other reasonable alternatives to it."

There were also strong calls from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and from Hythe businessman Terry McKnight for better use to be made of Southampton's existing port.

John Hurrell said part of CPRE's objection was based on under-use of the present dockland and fears that if dock operation was moved across the water, land on the Southampton side would be sold off for non-dock uses.

He referred to the already established Ocean Village and Town Quay areas and the preliminary proposals outlined in the new Royal Pier Development Brief pre-pared for Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports and the Crown Estate Commissioners.

That includes a seaward extension of Mayflower Park with an improved site for Southampton Boat Show and land reclamation in the Royal Pier and Town Quay areas.

"This development is envisaged to contain some 1,926 residential units, a 150- bed four-star hotel, a 60 bed budget hotel, offices, retail and mixed uses including a relocated Red Funnel Terminal and Hythe Ferry Terminal," he said.

Mr Hurrell also referred to the use of large areas of port land for the parking of vehicles being imported or exported.

In addition, he called for multi-storey car parks vehicles taking people to and from cruise liners.

There were also suggestions by Mr McKnight that ABP could increase its capacity in the existing docks by stacking its containers much higher than it does at present.

He referred to a single berth in Hong Kong that handled a million containers in a year, compared with Southampton's 2001 figure of 1,163,731 containers.

Mr McKnight, who was managing director of his own electronics firm and was also in the container business, said the improved use of land and greater efficiency could enable Southampton to increase its throughput without building Dibden Bay.

He also suggested multi-storey car parking to reduce the amount of dock-land that would be needed for vehicles and for the transfer of some containers on and off of ships to take place away from the dockside.