THE future of Eastleigh's long-awaited southern bypass - said to hold the key to the town's future prosperity and a means of averting traffic gridlock - today hangs in the balance.

Transport Secretary Stephen Byers has already given the green light for the long- awaited link from Chickenhall Lane to Wide Lane which is vital to a planned £60m business park development at the northern end of the airport.

But the British Aviation Authority, owners of Southampton Airport, yesterday launched a High Court challenge to the Whitehall decision which came after a long-running public inquiry after Eastleigh planners gave the scheme the go-ahead.

BAA want the matter referred back to the Transport Secretary for reconsideration and are challenging Mr Byers' ruling that the issue of putting the road in a tunnel could not be reopened.

BAA argued at the public inquiry in September 2000 that the route should not be given the go-ahead unless a 160-metre stretch of the road was put in a covered cutting or tunnel.

They said new international recommendations for safety areas at the end of runways meant that the airport would not be able to meet the proposed criteria if a surface road sliced through the northern end of the airport

Mr Justice Turner was told the outcome of the High Court case, expected to last several days, could have implications for the future develop-ment of Southampton Airport.

BAA says that the road, as currently planned, will cross the line of the runway just 123 metres beyond its end, just 33 metres beyond the Minimum Runway End Safety Area required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and far less than the recommended 240 metres.

As the planning permission stands, the road would be built in a cutting.

The BAA says that putting it in a tunnel below the line of the runway would extend the safety area to 162 metres.

Counsel for the airport operators, Robert Fookes, told the court that the proposals had "implications for the future use and development of Southampton Airport."

He also argued that the decision should be quashed because the Secretary of State had been wrong to decide that no environmental impact assessment was required into how the proposed road would affect the River Itchen - potentially a special area of conservation.

Proceeding.