IN a tough-talking move Associated British Ports has listed the reasons why the Essex Shell Haven site will not replace controversial plans for a world-class container terminal at Dibden Bay on Southampton Water.

This comes as part of a war of words between ABP and New Forest MP Dr Julian Lewis, who says Dibden Bay would quickly become obsolete and instead the development should take place on the Thames Estuary near Basildon.

Opposing the local plans, the MP threw down a challenge to Dibden Bay project manager Captain Jimmy Chestnutt to say whether the new generation of vessels would be able to berth at the terminal.

"ABP claims that I am wrong to predict that any container port built at Dibden Bay would soon become obsolescent,'' said Dr Lewis.

"Surely this matter can be easily put to the test Let ABP tell us whether the third generation of ships, which will carry up to 13,000 containers, will be able to negotiate the Solent and berth at Dibden Bay.''

In a swift response, Captain Chestnutt said: "Once again Dr Lewis continues to feel it appropriate to champion the Shell Haven site rather than proposals offering employment to his constituents and promoting continued prosperity for the region they live and work in.

"As the statutory harbour authority ABP has a responsibility to promote the interests of Southampton and we take that responsibility seriously.

"Dr Lewis seems to think the number of containers a craft carries is the sole factor that decides whether a ship would be able to berth at Dibden Bay, whereas, in fact, it is the draught of a ship that is crucial.

"The port of Southampton already copes with the biggest vessels afloat and that will continue to be the case in the future.''

Earlier this month Dr Lewis wrote to ABP's principal shareholders claiming Shell Haven was "tailor made'' for development as a container port. "ABP have set their face against Shell Haven, for reasons best known to themselves, but that will not stop competitors from snapping it up as a marvellous opportunity and developing it without the costs involved and the obstacles to be overcome in trying to develop a greenfield site like Dibden Bay,'' the MP told financial institutions.

Captain Chestnutt said ABP's chief executive, Bo Lerenius, wrote to Dr Lewis some considerable time ago explaining there was a variety of reasons why Shell Haven was not an alternative.

"As part of the planning process, the evaluation of Shell Haven raised a number of important questions,'' said Captain Chestnutt.

"The site's traffic links are via the heavily-used M25 which would not be able to handle the additional projected traffic without considerable additional capacity and associated environmental impacts.

"Shell Haven suffers from congested rail links through the London area where existing freight needs compete with pressing and intensive passenger demand.

"A large initial dredge, followed by significant maintenance dredging, would have commercial and environmental consequences.

"In comparison to Southampton there would be long passage times for container vessels to reach Shell Haven and it would also add additional strain on capacity in the Thames area.''

Converted for the new archive on 25 January 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.