SOUTH Hampshire can manage without the jobs created by a new port at Dibden Bay - and it can also do without thousands of extra vehicles clogging its roads.

That was the blunt message from Council for the Protection of Rural England spokesman Paul Moon at the public inquiry in Southampton's Eastern Docks into proposals for the £738m project.

Southampton Docks operator Associ-ated British Ports is applying for planning permission for a huge container terminal between Hythe and Marchwood and has predicted that it will create 3,000 new jobs.

But Doctor Moon told inquiry inspector Michael Hurley that unemployment claimants in Southampton had dropped by 1,000 to 2,886 over the past year.

"The unemployment rate in the city is 2.4 per cent," he said, adding that it was well below the UK average".

He added that figures in the neighbouring areas of New Forest (1.3 per cent), Test Valley (0.8 per cent), Winchester (0.6 per cent) and Eastleigh (0.8 per cent) included some of the lowest in the country.

Arguing against the need for the scheme, he suggested that some of the vacancies created at Dibden Bay might not be suitable for the currently unemployed.

"The economy of Hampshire will not be helped by having 3,000 more low-tech jobs. In fact, Hampshire looks like having a surplus of low-tech jobs over the next decade," he said.

Doctor Moon also predicted that a Dibden Bay dock could damage Hampshire's lucrative tourist industry.

"Tourists visiting Hampshire spend in excess of £376m per annum, including £167m spent by overseas visitors, which was included in Southern Tourist Board figures for 1999.

"It is reasonable to assume that they come to visit its attractive countryside, its historic towns and those parts of the coast that still remain attractive.

"This valuable industry will not be aided by another quantum leap in the south coast sprawl," he said.

Referring to extra houses that would have to be built to accommodate people who moved into the area to fill job vacancies, he also spoke of additional commercial activity and "roads choked by 6,000 or some additional daily heavy goods vehicle movements."

On the question of people moving in, he summed up: "The inward migration of people seeking employment at the port will not be good for those parts of the nation losing population and employment.

"Also, it will not be good for Hampshire either as the additional development needed to accommodate these people will exacerbate the problems of an already overcrowded region and further add to the loss of countryside and Hampshire's renowned wildlife habitats."

Earlier, New Forest District and Marchwood Parish Councillor Nick Smith had referred to the damage which he said would be done to his parish: "Marchwood will be the parish most affected by this development. Road alterations, traffic increases, railway alterations and increases in rail traffic will take place in the parish."

With some of the village's 5,925 residents living just half-mile from the proposed development, Cllr Smith warned: "No other population of this size within the UK has been faced with such a large construction project so close to their homes. No other population of this size throughout the UK has been asked to suddenly live in such close proximity of a port or industrial development of this magnitude."

Also contesting the need for the scheme, he referred to Marchwood having less than one per cent unemployment

"There appears at present to be no decline in new job opportunities in the region with employers voicing difficulties in recruiting skilled staff and the local newspaper, the Daily Echo, advertising weekly over 800 new jobs.

He also suggested that traffic alterations and increased number of closures of the level crossing gates would make it more difficult for large sections of the community to reach the village centre quickly and safely.

"It will be quicker and easier for residents on the west of the railway line to reach the large supermarkets on the A326. This sudden decrease in business will be detrimental to the profitability and existence of the village shopping facility," he commented.

Speaking of the negative impact of the project on the local economy and the residents' quality of life, as well as the possibility of people moving out, he added: "The need for this development cannot exceed the disruption and destruction of a community of 6,000 people."

With the argument as to whether the port is needed having been completed yesterday, the inquiry was adjourned until Tuesday, February 5.

Associated British Ports will then embark on the arguments against alternative solutions. After it has explained why it feels that Dibden Bay is the best place for the new terminal, objectors will put their arguments forward.