SOUTHAMPTON Docks bosses not only face opposition to the Dibden Bay plans from neighbouring residents, a posse of environmental groups and an MP.

It also emerged yesterday that they face the might of the British Army as the public inquiry into their plans for a huge port development between Hythe and Marchwood went into its second day.

Shortly after the scheme had come under fire from two other government-backed organisations - the environment Agency and English Nature - it was the turn of Defence Estates, which owns Marchwood Military Port and RAF Hythe (he US Army Base at Hythe) to open its case.

Its QC David Smith warned that the scheme for a new container terminal has the potential to cause it problems on the roads, the railways, the water and the seabed.

Estates' QC David Smith even warned that the massive dock proposal drawn up by Associated British Ports could also bring problems through the air in the form of increased noise levels.

Marchwood is Europe's biggest military port and has sent ships and supplies to major international conflicts such as the Falklands, the Gulf War and more recently the military exercise in Oman which coincided with the Afghanistan crisis.

Those activities have involved large road convoys in addition to normal military port traffic. On the question of road traffic, Mr Smith said: "We are, here, a bit grumpy.

"We had analysed the road proposals described in ABP's material and found them wanting from the point of view of road access to MMP (Marchwood Military Port)."

He said there had been discussion between the Estates and ABP since the plans were first drawn up and some progress had been made but suggested that ABP had 'underestimated' the long-term growth in traffic.

Speaking of calculations that the A326 linking the Bay and Marchwood with Southampton and the motorway network could have to accommodate 3,900 Dibden Terminal vehicles per day, including 3,000 heavy goods vehicles, he added: "These vehicles represent an increase of some 21 per cent expressed as pcus (passenger car units) and reflect an increase in the HGV trips alone of some 126 per cent.

"This will be a considerable burden on the road network. ABP needs to address this and it needs to find a better solution than that paraded in the environmental statement and associated material," he said.

Mr Smith also questioned ABP's figures for the effectiveness of a park and ride or park and sail (to and from Southampton) in reducing road traffic.

On the question of railways, he referred to suggestions that there was a need for improvements to the junction of the Fawley branch line, which would serve the port, with the main Waterloo to Weymouth line.

With additional military freight often channelled through Marchwood at short notice, he referred to a consultant's comment that "the need for Marchwood Military Port to respond flexibly to changing demands has not been recognised by ABP."

On the dredging activity linked to the proposed development, he cited evidence from a Defence Estates' expert who disputes ABP's predications as to the settling of silt on the sea bed and said peaks were likely to build up and those peaks would need to be dredged for the military vessels to operate effectively.

On the surface of the sea, he said the structure of the new terminal would "bring a cliff face and a blind bend protruding into the channel."

"The terminal," he said, "will also lead to wave reflections off the new quay wall as well as the inevitable amplification of waves in this area around Marchwood Military Port.

"There will be particular impact on the smaller vessels and on the personnel undergoing training at MMP."

On the question of noise and vibration, Mr Smith said the way ABP had arrived at its figures was "remarkable" and added that barriers aimed at keeping the noise away from MMP's residential properties would be ineffective against locomotive noise."

The Environment Agency which protects the environment and English Nature, which has special responsibility for plants and wildlife, also fired their opening shots yesterday, when the number in the public seats had dwindled to around 35 from the first day's estimated 350.

Environment Agency QC Robert Griffiths told inquiry inspector Michael Hurley: "These proposals have the potential to cause serious harm to the marine and aquatic environment. It is a major and environmentally-intrusive development and calls for very careful scrutiny."

Although some aspects of concern could be overcome, he said, issues such as erosion, deposition of sediment, nature conservation and fisheries were the agency's main points of objection.

With heavy-dredging operations essential to the building of the new port, Mr Griffiths spoke of a deterioration of water quality, which could mean breaches of European standards.

He also said there were worries as to whether ABP's plan to take dredgings to marshy land between Hythe and the Fawley Marine Terminal could be carried out without damaging the shoreline environment.

The projected drop in the water quality caused by the scheme, he added, could also deal a serious blow to the "unique and irreplaceable" salmon stocks of the rivers Test and Itchen.

There were also strong warnings from English Nature QC Jonathan Mitchell that serious damage could be done to the ecology of the bay itself.

ABP has included in its scheme plans to open up a creek between the bay and Hythe Marina and to carry out work which would help provide a habitat for birds between Hythe and the Fawley Marine Terminal.

But Mr Mitchell said English Nature felt those measures were "grossly inadequate" and that the project would harm the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area, the Solent maritime candidate Special Area of Conservation and the Southampton Water Ramsar Site. He added: "The harm to the sites and the need for compensation for that is self-evident. In contrast to the certainty of this land take, the measures proposed by ABP are experimental and uncertain in outcome and time scale."