SOUTHAMPTON port bosses have rejected claims that they could meet increasing demand by making better use of the existing docks.

They also said jobs would be lost if firms had to leave the docks to make way for new development.

Port director Andrew Kent was giving evidence at the public inquiry into plans for a container terminal at Dibden Bay.

Associated British Ports (ABP) is seeking consent to build a six-berth terminal on 500 acres of reclaimed coastline between Hythe and Marchwood.

The scheme has angered nature groups and other objectors, who claim it is not necessary to construct a massive dock development on the site.

The inquiry is currently looking at whether new berths could be provided in the existing docks, or at another port in the UK.

Mr Kent said: "There are several ways in which the cargo capacity of the existing port might be increased. Non-port uses occupying land within the port could be removed. Some land could be 'decked' to provide additional space, or storage methods could be changed to increase the density of cargo on a site at any one time.

"The time that cargo remains in storage could be reduced, increasing throughput over a given area. But all these measures would produce a maximum 46 hectares of additional land, divided among a number of sites scattered throughout the port.

"Individual locations would be insufficient in size to support any one berth.

"The net gain if sites were decked would also be diminished by the space required to gain access to such facilities."

Mr Kent said ABP had looked into the possibility of carrying out major port expansion without using Dibden Bay.

But no other sites were large enough, had good transport links and could be equipped with quays capable of handling huge ships, he said.

"We have also considered the possibility of major redevelopment of either the Western or Eastern Docks to provide additional container berths," added Mr Kent.

"We've concluded it would not be possible to create the quays required alongside the back-up storage land necessary for this type of operation."

Mr Kent pointed out that Dibden Bay was next to an existing railway line and close to the motorway system surrounding Southampton.

"From that point of view, as well as marine access, it is in a good location for port development," he said.

Outlining the need for a new terminal Mr Kent said the container business was expanding and so were other trades handled by the port.

"The growth of those other trades is already causing pressure on existing facilities, and we need to allow for additional facilities," he said.

"We must therefore retain a stock of available land to accommodate those needs if we are not to lose customers."

Returning to the possibility of redeveloping the Eastern or Western Docks, Mr Kent said any major scheme would displace existing users.

"This would have a very serious effect not only on their own businesses but also on jobs," he warned.

Inquiry chairman Michael Hurley heard that ABP could face legal problems if it attempted to evict companies that had long leases and tenancy agreements.

Organisations objecting to the Dibden Bay scheme say ABP could make better use of existing space by improving its operating procedures.

But Mr Kent criticised some of the statements made by protesters. Summing up, he said there was no possibility of meeting ever-increasing demand by revamping the docks.

Mr Kent repeated his earlier assertion that Dibden Bay was a suitable site for a new terminal. "It's well located for port development - and would not necessarily duplicate the facilities within the existing port estate," he said.