Associated British Ports will on Tuesday begin taking the top off the biggest crate of controversy ever to hit the shores of Southampton Water.
After all the opening statements, the inquiry switches from Applemore Recreation Centre to the former Stena Sealink ferry terminal in Southampton's Eastern Docks. It is then that the evidence in chief will begin, with planning consultant Martin Hendry outlining the proposals.
With applications for a harbour revision order, a transport and works (Fawley branch line) railway order, planning applications for roadworks and railway line noise barriers and compulsory purchase orders for land and foreshore, that is set to be a mammoth task. When he finishes speaking, Mr Hendry will be less than halfway through his stance. He is due to be cross-examined by nine different QCs or objectors.
Listed for Wednesday is the scheme's construction and phasing expert, Kim Candler - and the same nine-strong list will be waiting to throw questions at him after he has put his case. If those ordeals go through on schedule, Southampton port director Andrew Kent will take the stand on Friday.
But although the flak has been flying, ABP's over-riding case in the run-up is that this is a project it is proud of and it is a project vital to the future prosperity of the area.
Queen's Counsel Martin Kingston laid the foundations of that case in his preliminaries with the comment: "We must recognise that, as a trading nation in a rapidly-changing world, we must deliver high-quality goods and services at prices customers will pay.
"We must have an infrastructure which is able to support economic objectives."
He also left no one in any doubt that ABP was aware of the opposition and it believed that the huge community, environmental and navigational arguments against it could be overcome.
Objectors wade in with guns blazing
IF Dibden Bay was a person, it would probably be thinking of jumping off a cliff after the first short week of its public inquiry.
The proposal for a new container terminal between Marchwood and Hythe was given a warm and enthusiastic send-off by its promoters Associated British Ports with a big pat on the back by Southampton City Council.
Both ABP and Southampton finally had the chance to tell the world about the scheme which they say is vital to the future economy of the area and of the UK.
Then the going got tough and in came the objectors, one after another, with all guns blazing.
Hampshire County and New Forest District Councils jointly took issue with the impact on the environment, traffic congestion and the communities living in the area.
Then the Environment Agency and English Nature took their turns at pinpointing the damage it could do to the conservation of the area from shellfish and salmon to the skyline and seabirds.
Next, there was a blast from the British Army. Defence Estates, which owns Marchwood Military Port and RAF Hythe (the US Army base) is still negotiating with ABP on certain points, but it is clearly unhappy about the effect of the re-alignment of the sea wall adjoining Marchwood and all the extra traffic on the roads, rail and water, not forgetting piles of silt from the dredging operations which could cause peaks on the sea bed.
New Forest East MP Dr Julian Lewis, Councillors Mel Kendal, Nick Smith and Alan Shotter all referred to a range of threats, including disruption from nine years of construction and lasting damage for the communities to bear.
Councillor Smith summed up their general theme with the comment: "ABP will never be welcome on the Waterside."
Residents Against Dibden Bay Port, Hythe Marina Association, the RSPB, ramblers, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust, the New Forest Committee, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Widlife Trust, the Royal Yachting Association, the Solent Protection Society, Friends of the Earth and the Cruising Association have piled in, too.
ABP has been presented with a massive pack of cards it has to overcome if it is to convince Inquiry Inspector Michael Hurley and Secretary of State Stephen Byers that the plan should be given the go-ahead.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article