TODAY begins a process that will change the shape of the Southampton area forever.

It will take a year to complete, cost over £2 million and will change all of our lives.

As Inspector Michael Hurley takes his seat for the year-long Dibden Bay Inquiry, one thing is certain: whatever the outcome, the future of our city and the half a million people who live in and near to it will never be the same.

If ABP have their way and manage to persuade the Inquiry of the need to build their massive container terminal across the water at Dibden there is little doubt lives on the Waterside will be changed.

Years of building work followed by an increase in traffic and noise cannot fail to alter life for the worst.

Yet if the terminal is not built the future of Southampton as Britain's premier port is in great doubt. The baton will pass to other cities and we will go backwards.

Those in a nutshell are the stakes.

Do we sacrifice the unkempt beauty of the waterside at Dibden for all time to preserve the hopes and future prosperity of the region?

To anyone living outside of the immediate area affected these may seem academic questions. What concern is it to the people of Winchester and Eastleigh, fareham and Gosport whether Southampton continues to flourish? We would say you very future is bound up with that of the great city and port at the region's heart.

Prosperity brings jobs, not just in the docks but throughout the region. A vibrant port brings investment in infrastructure, roads and services. Success breeds success.

But success and growth also bring their problems. How fast can our infrastructure grow? Can there ever be enough investment to overcome our severe traffic problems? And do we not owe it to future generations to save whatever green lungs still exist in our concrete world? Should the emphasis be on preservation rather than exploitation?

Therefore, how will future generations judge the decisions made at this inquiry?

Of course this could all be academic. The massive inquiry into the future of Heathrow Airport appeared to pay little heed to the wishes of the local population. Last week's decision by the government to go ahead regardless proved the folly of such drawn-out inquiries. And there are already indications from Whitehall that Dibden Bay will be the last of its kind, a final throw of the dice for an inquiry process that costs too much and appears to pose more questions than it answers.

And so we face a year, at least, of argument and debate. By the inquiry end we should have delved deep into the issues for each of us to have made up our own minds whether Dibden Bay should go ahead.

By then our thoughts will no longer count.

Perhaps they never did.

Let the show begin.