PUBLIC inquiries into two other port plans could be well under way before a decision is taken on whether a huge new dock development can go ahead at Dibden Bay.

The bay's own public inquiry began on November 30 and is scheduled to end around November 16 this year.

But when it continued in Southampton's Eastern Docks yesterday, there were suggestions that Transport Secretary Stephen Byers could have to consider inspectors' reports from three public inquiries in close succession.

One of the schemes involves the redevelopment of the former Shell Oil Refinery at Shell Haven on the Thames Estuary and the other is the Bathside Bay port extension at Harwich in Essex.

Further ahead, moves are also under way for the Thamesport development on the Isle of Grain on the north Kent coast.

In the face of the Shell and Thamesport projects, barrister Richard Drabble who is representing Dibden Bay objectors Hampshire County and New Forest District Councils, suggested the pile-up of plans.

In cross-examining ABP planning consultant Martin Hendry, he asked: "Is it highly likely that the Secretary of State will be seized of applications and Dibden at the same time?"

Mr Hendry agreed it did appear to be likely although the applications for the other two schemes were not yet available. He added that he believed the Shell Haven inquiry was more likely to start in 2003 than at the end of this year and Mr Drabble suggested that the Bathside Bay project was "unlikely to be slower."

The councils' barrister added: "There would probably be inquiry reports before the Secretary of State before he has had time to make a decision on Dibden Bay."

But Mr Hendry scorned any suggestion that the ABP scheme might fall because of any of the others. He said: "I believe the Secretary of State will end up saying ABP's proposal, with mitigation and compensation if necessary, is acceptable in its own right. I don't think he needs to put all these three in one pot and then decide when he is going to pluck out the winner."

On the impact on homes, Mr Hendry disputed claims that Dibden Bay would be closer to its nearest residents than Bathside.

Dealing with suggestions that the nearest houses were 500 metres from the Dibden scheme, he said: "I estimate from the Bathside environmental statement that many existing houses in Harwich are less than 200 metres from the edge of the proposed operational port and the closest are 140 metres from it."

He added that the Dibden plan involved a large screening mound of earth and a creek between homes and the dock and there was no such proposal at Bathside, although the houses were closer.

Mr Hendry also revealed that ABP had been involved in talks with the rail authorities regarding links with Dibden Bay. They saw it, he said, as a major growth area, not simply because of what was proposed at Dibden and increasing input through Southampton Container Terminals, but because it was an area the railway network could handle easily.

There was also confirmation from inquiry inspector Michael Hurley that the inquiry in Southampton would be making recommendations one way or the other regarding Dibden.

Following suggestions that the Shell Haven promoters felt ABP was objecting to their scheme, Mr Hurley said: "It is not our remit to make any recommendations to the Secretary of State in respect of any other applications, either Bathside Bay or Shell Haven or anyone else."

He also said he was aware of the length the inquiry could run if it started delving into the details of the other schemes.