ASSOCIATED British Ports, developers of the planned controversial Dibden Bay container terminal, are facing a staggering £20m bill over the forthcoming public inquiry.

By the end of the hearing, the port operator will have dug deep into the company's coffers to cover the costs of preparing details of the multi-million-pound scheme and to have its proposals examined at the inquiry, which is expected to last for 12 months.

ABP also revealed yesterday that intense, behind-the-scenes negotiations have resulted in three major objectors to the container terminal, due to be constructed on reclaimed land on Southampton Water, withdrawing their opposition to the proposal.

The owners of Southampton Docks, who want to build world-class deep-sea berths opposite the present port, say they also expect a further four objectors to withdraw soon.

This comes just days before the company presents its case for the terminal at the start of one of the most important and contentious planning inquiries ever to be held in the region.

Captain Jimmy Chestnutt, ABP's project leader for Dibden terminal, said: "We are very confident and in good heart as we approach the beginning of the inquiry.

"As for the objectors that remain, we firmly believe that our comprehensive application addresses all of their concerns, and we welcome the start of the public inquiry which will give us an opportunity to present the facts of this matter."

Individuals and organisations opposed to the development claim the terminal will damage the environment, put extra pressure on the transport network and that the terminal would soon become a white elephant as there is no demand for extra container capacity.

Developers hit back saying the terminal is vital to ensure the continued future prosperity of the regional and national economy, it will create around 3,000 extra jobs and is needed to cope with the growing traffic of international trade.

According to the inquiry programme, legal submissions and opening statements are expected to take up the first week of the hearing with the proposals for the scheme occupying the second week.

Other subjects to be examined at the inquiry include the need for the proposed terminal, nature conservation, land access to Dibden Bay, noise and vibration, countryside issue and rights of way together with tourism and recreation.

ABP also said it had already held discussions with shipping lines which are future potential customers of the Dibden Terminal.

If the scheme does get government approval, it is expected that the terminal would be constructed over a period of about nine years in three consecutive phases.

Depending on when the government decision is announced, ABP anticipates that the first phase will become operational by 2005, with the entire project to be completed by the end of 2011. The inquiry is set to begin on November 27 at the Applemore Recreation Club at Dibden and then continue at the former ferry terminal in Southampton's Eastern Docks from December 4.

Residents Against Dibden Bay spokesman Phil Henderson said: "I am not surprised in the least by this amount. But if they won planning permission, it would transform their balance sheets - just imagine the value of a 500-acre site with industrial planning permission.

"One could see them moving the SCT container operation across from Southampton Docks and if that happened, it would give them a lot of land for redevelopment. But it's a pity from their point of view that it's going to fail."

ABP's immense outlay on the project brought an immediate reaction from New Forest East MP Doctor Julian Lewis, that the port operator is the Goliath in a David and Goliath battle.

After stressing that his constituents would be "terribly affected by the port" if it went ahead, he said: "One should not forget who won that battle.

"But if I were a shareholder in ABP. I would be worried about so much money being spent on a project which on any objective basis should be doomed to failure."

Hampshire and New Forest Councillor Brian Dash described the outlay as a sad waste of money, but reflected: "In terms of property speculation, it may well be peanuts to them.

"It is not impossible, of course, that the money could be recouped by building more houses in the Docks area. But it is an awful lot to spend on something which could ruin the environment of the Waterside."