The Andover Advertiser, news, sport and features from the pages of your favourite local newspaper

DIBDEN BAY INQUIRY: DAYS 61-70

From the archive, first published Saturday 6th Mar 2004.

DAY 61: ABP salmon stock donation derided

WATER watchdogs from the Environment Agency have poured scorn on the £250,000 fund set aside by Associated British Ports to help save local fish stocks.

At the public inquiry at Southampton Docks into ABP's plans for a new container terminal at Dibden Bay, salmon topped the menu this week.

ABP has offered £250,000 to help boost numbers of wild salmon which travel up Southampton Water annually to reach their spawning grounds in the Itchen and Test rivers.

Ian Townend, ABP's environmental expert, has suggested using the cash to clean up gravel beds used by the salmon to lay their thousands of eggs, giving them a better chance of survival.

"We don't think there would be any material risk to the fish from a development at Dibden Bay. But we are offering this as an insurance policy in case we're wrong," he said.

But Robert Griffiths, for the Environment Agency, said ABP's gravel-cleaning scheme might not achieve its aims and the funding level was unacceptable.

"The Agency says that a minimum programme of £2m initially and £5m over the ten-year construction period would be needed," he said. "The planned development poses a serious threat of extinction to fish stocks. A fund of £250,000 is not going to do a great deal to offset it.

"There are 400,000 square metres of gravel in the Test and Itchen used by adult salmon. ABP's money would only pay for three per cent of that available habitat to be cleaned of silt. Not a significant contribution."

Mr Townend argued that ABP felt its contribution was proportionate, and how the money was used was up to the Environment Agency.

"Funding is needed now to support dwindling fish stocks, whether Dibden Bay gets permission or not. It is not fair to ask ABP to fund the whole of the agency's action plan for the Test and Itchen," he said.

Local fishery spokesmen are due to give evidence to the inquiry this afternoon.

DAY 62: Plan `would hit anglers badly'

Echo reporter newsdesk@soton-echo.co.uk

SOUTHAMPTON'S sea anglers will be left with nowhere to fish if a major port development goes ahead at Dibden Bay, one of the area's leading fishermen has warned.

Shirley Sea Angling Club's chairman Bob Patterson was speaking after giving evidence to the inquiry into plans for the huge new container terminal between Hythe and Marchwood.

On behalf of Southampton's 25 clubs, he warned against the potential damage to the area's bass population and the loss of shore fishing and bait digging grounds.

He also warned of the potential danger for fishermen who would have to cross a narrower channel in small boats.

He told inquiry chairman Michael Hurley: "The whole of Southampton Water is a bass nursery area from May 1 to October 31.

"This development would destroy a large part of this nursery," he warned.

The bay itself was an important sheltered area where people could fish in relative safety from their boats.

It was also one of the best stretches of coastline in the south for people fishing from the shore, he told the inquiry.

He also spoke of the potential danger which would be caused by the narrowing of the channel when the new dock was created.

There were warnings, too, that the jewels in the crown of commercial fishing in Southampton Water and the Solent could also be severely damaged.

As well as hearing that those jewels - precious oyster beds near the area where Southampton Water joins the Solent - could be tarnished, the inquiry also heard of potential damage to other marine life.

The proposals by Southampton dock operator Associated British Ports to build the terminal include vast amounts of dredging to accommodate some of the world's biggest container ships.

The sediment which drifts into the water from that dredging could cause severe damage to the productive beds at Chilling, Calshot and Stanswood Bay, oyster distributor and fisherman Robbie Russell told the inquiry in Southampton's Eastern Docks.

He also cited damage done to shellfish populations in Southampton Water when a dredging operation went wrong and the sea bed was smothered with sediment.

The Southern Sea Fisheries District's chief fishery officer, Ian Carrier, also warned of potential damage.

This could be not only to the oysters but also to important breeding grounds for bass, one of the sea's most valuable fish

He also questioned the confidence in ABP's marine impact evaluations which stated that nothing would go wrong.

"We are concerned that there are considerable potential risks.

"We therefore consider that a much wider risk analysis needs to be carried out and that this must then establish clear guidelines as to what will happen if things do go wrong," he said.

Similar fears were voiced by Mrs Gillian Mills, secretary of the Stanswood Bay Oystermen's Association, which fishes a large area of oysters off Calshot and Lepe.

She disputed claims in an earlier document that oysters can stand being buried by sediment.

"That is not the case.

"It has an adverse effect on both spat (the spawn from which oysters grow) and juveniles by smothering and the silting of gills in adults which, if not limited, can result in death," she said.

She and Mr Carrier also expressed deep reservations over the dumping of dredged material on marshland between Hythe and Fawley Refinery.

DAY 63: Test and Itchen salmon `in peril'

Echo reporter newsdesk@soton-echo.co.uk

SALMON could become extinct on Hampshire's two main rivers if a new dock development goes ahead, a leading fishery consultant has warned.

Dr David Solomon, who has been working on salmon and other fisheries for 30 years, told the public inquiry into plans for a container terminal at Dibden Bay that salmon were already under threat.

They were already "teetering on the verge of total collapse," he said and he added: "Any increased mortality at any stage of the life cycle would reduce stocks still further and is likely to contribute to the extinction of the stocks."

Salmon would have to pass through Southampton Water at least twice before they could reproduce, he said, warning that their journey through the estuary represented "critical and high risk".

"Typically, only ten per cent of the young fish that migrate to the sea return to the rivers as adults and much of this high level of mortality is believed to take place in the estuary and coastal waters," he said. The inquiry heard that the agency's concerns included the sediment caused by dredging and the main construction work, which would have the effect of narrowing the channel through which the salmon pass.

Mr Solomon added that one of the perils faced by returning salmon was "a significant level" of illegal fishing.

Some of it, he said, was done by people fishing for other species while other people went out deliberately to fish for salmon.

"One of the hot spots is the Redbridge Causeway and having surveillance there would greatly help with policing," he said.

Mr Solomon also told the inquiry that only one or two per cent of the salmon which did return to the Test from the sea survived to spawn a second time.

The Environment Agency has demanded a detailed set of monitoring and conservation measures from Associated British Ports, the Southampton Docks operator.

ABP counsel Martin Kingston took issue with some of those demands and on a clause requiring that the salmon populations should not be allowed to slip below 400 on the Test and 180 on the Itchen, he pointed out they had on previous occasions. In cross-examining agency scientist David Lowthion, he suggested: "The agency is, in effect, moving the whole responsibility for the maintenance of salmon stocks from it to ABP."

Mr Lowthion, head of the agency's southern region science and marine section, said he had insufficient information to disagree.

DAY 64: Dibden traffic fear being analysed

Kay Cooper kay.cooper@soton-echo.co.uk

THE threat of an extra 4,700 vehicles a day on the country lanes of Marchwood and Dibden is being analysed at the long-running public inquiry into plans to build a £750m container port at Dibden Bay.

As the hearing at Southampton Docks reached Day 64, the spotlight fell on road, rail and sea routes around the Bay in Southampton Water.

Waterside councillors and residents are queuing up to object to a scheme many fear will cause traffic chaos on inadequate rural roads.

Associated British Ports (ABP) - behind the container port plan - argue that Dibden Bay offers the maximum chance to provide nationally-needed facilities at minimum environmental impact.

ABP's transportation consultant David Tucker said that they had committed themselves to "significant and appropriate" cash contributions to improve local roads, and planned to make the best possible use of rail and sea routes to reduce car and lorry traffic.

He said employees at the new container port - an estimated 500-1700 people at various stages of the development - would be able to come to work by staff-only boat from Southampton, by a staff-only shuttle bus, on an express bus service, or via the Hythe ferry.

"We aim to minimise employee car travel with at least 30 per cent of trips by non-car modes," said Mr Tucker.

He said that to cut road traffic while the port was being built, bulk materials would be shipped in by barge, and concrete would be made for the project on site.

ABP estimated that upgrades to the Fawley railway line would enable it to carry up to 44 freight trains a day into the completed container port, as well as four trains into Marchwood Military Port and eight to the Esso Refinery.

Mr Tucker added that the level crossings along the Fawley branch line would get safety upgrades.

"For example at Totton, money has been set aside to improve facilities - like the footway where people wait to cross - to compensate for the extra traffic across the level crossing," he said.

But Mr Tucker admitted that despite these measures, the port development could generate an estimated 4,684 vehicles a day and the biggest impact would fall on the A326 Marchwood bypass.

"The worst case scenario is a traffic increase of 15.7 per cent daily," he said.

"Government policy is not to over-provide.

"If roads are improved to cope with peak periods there is no incentive to people to transfer to other modes of transport."

DAY 65: Gridlock fear of new port

Peter East peter.east@soton-echo.co.uk

TEA-TIME tailbacks on an already congested stretch of Hampshire would increase if a new dock is built between Hythe and Marchwood, a public inquiry has heard.

Commuters who live along the eastern edge of the New Forest already have a slow crawl home along the busy A326 Marchwood Bypass.

The public inquiry into plans for a new container terminal at Dibden Bay heard that the crawl would become even slower if Southampton Docks operator Associated British Ports (ABP) was given the go-ahead and built the terminal.

Cross-examined by Rich-ard Drabble, for Hampshire County and New Forest District councils, ABP transport expert David Tucker conceded there would be delays.

He agreed that estimates drawn up had predicted that the present two-minute wait while traffic from the Rushington Roundabout merges with vehicles from the Totton Western Bypass dual carriageway could grow to eight minutes.

There was also evidence predicting delays at other junctions on the A326, which would connect the port with Southampton and the motorway network.

Earlier, Mr Tucker had pointed out that management at the present Southampton Container Terminal was working towards reducing the number of lorries arriving and leaving at peak traffic times.

"They are trying very hard at present to discourage drivers from appearing in the peaks because of the difficulties for them.

"The old idea was you turned up when it suited the driver, but of course it is a 24-hour operation." He said the most efficient way to operate was for lorries to arrive at a regular rate.

Mr Tucker was also quizzed on predictions for the future, which included a forecast that by 2026 there would be a peak hour congestion throughout the nation's road network."

The Secretary of State for Transport will eventually decide whether the scheme can go ahead.

DAY 66: Fears over road and rail traffic

Echo reporter newsdesk@soton-echo.co.uk

TRANSPORT and traffic once again dominated discussions as the Dibden Bay public inquiry entered its 66th day.

The inquiry into proposals by Associated British Ports (ABP) to build a huge new container ship terminal on recovered land at Dibden Bay has heard how the increased quantity of traffic caused by the new terminal would have a huge impact on the area's motorists.

While discussions on the issue earlier this week focused on what improvements would have to be made to the A326, the current main road near Dibden, for it to cope with traffic increases, yesterday the inquiry focused on the knock-on effect on smaller roads in the area.

In particular, questions were raised as to whether the proposed up-grading of the A326 envisaged by ABP would be sufficient to handle the forecast traffic increases.

ABP felt confident they would be sufficient, provided the government's aim to reduce peak-hour traffic by 17 per cent before the planned opening date of the terminal in 2011 was reached.

The likelihood of people then leaving the A326 to use smaller trunk roads when the main routes got congested was also brought up by the council's spokesman as another reason not to accept ABP traffic predictions.

ABP's consultant transport expert David Tucker argued that in all probability anyone doing that would be a local resident with local knowledge.

For heavy goods vehicles, which would be the main source of traffic increase caused by the new terminal, it simply was not advantageous for them to leave the bigger roads.

A spokesman for Totton and Eling Town Council also questioned the effect of increased rail traffic through the area.

Particular concern was raised over the length of time crossing gates will be down, with one estimate suggesting they could be down 50 per cent of the time at certain parts of the day.

The Secretary of State for Transport will decide whether the scheme should go ahead.

DAY 67: Transport issue looms large

Echo reporter newsdesk@soton-echo.co.uk

THE focus of the public inquiry into the construction of a huge new container terminal on reclaimed land at Dibden Bay yesterday turned to the issue of rail transport.

One of the criteria used by Associated British Ports (ABP) in its proposals for the terminal was that many of the containers brought into the new port could then be shipped on either on other ships or via the freight train network.

This was seen as the least disruptive method of moving cargo out of the new terminal on to its final destination.

However, the issue of rail usage also proved to be a thorn in ABP's side.

Specifically, Councillor Smith of Marchwood was concerned over the amount of time trains would close level crossings in his ward for.

Statistics suggest the average time big freight trains take to pass crossings would be 2min 57sec, and figures quoted by ABP's consultant transport expert, David Tucker, suggest that at certain times of the day some crossings would be closed for more than 50 per cent of the time.

This, Cllr Smith argued, was to much for too long, and he felt it could lead to dangerous situations where schoolchildren were forced to wait by busy roads while trains passed.

Concern was also raised over the impact increased rail traffic would have on commuter services, and whether passengers would suffer while freight services prospered.

However, Mr Tucker said this wasn't going to happen, and that a passing loop at Basingstoke was planned to allow passenger trains on the route to London to overtake slower freight traffic.

The inquiry resumes again on Monday for its 68th day.

The ultimate decision on whether the container terminal should go ahead is down to the Home Secretary.

DAY 68 Day 68 of the inquiry comprised of a brief session at which the hearing was adjourned for 24 hours

DAY 69: A326 poised to be four-lane highway

A MAJOR breakthrough has taken place over controversial traffic issues surrounding the planned £750m port at Dibden Bay.

Hampshire County Council has thrashed out a compromise with Associated British Ports (ABP) following two days of talks. Under the deal, the Waterside's busiest road is set to become a four-lane highway under ABP's plans to build the huge container terminal.

Proposals unveiled yesterday aim to increase the capacity of the A326 to enable it to cope with extra traffic generated by the proposed port.

The county council had expressed concern about increased congestion on the road, which links the Dibden Bay area with Totton and the M27.

Now Southampton port bosses have published plans to upgrade the route. Under the scheme the A326 will be widened north of Hythe, giving the county council the option of dividing the road into four lanes.

Protesters say it will become a dual carriageway in all but name.

ABP unveiled the proposal at a public inquiry into its application to build the new dock development at Dibden Bay.

The announcement followed 48 hours of talks earlier this week between ABP and the county council. At the meeting highway chiefs expressed concern about the amount of additional traffic likely to use the A326 if the container terminal is approved.

The talks resulted in proposals to increase the width of the A326 from 12 metres to 13,

ABP witness David Tucker said: "The county council agrees that the scheme will provide the necessary capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed terminal.

"The county council is satisfied that its objections relating to highway design and the capacity of the A326 have been overcome."

Mr Tucker said road widening would be carried out between Marchwood and Hounsdown, and between the Foxhills area and Fletchwood Lane.

He was cross-examined by Marchwood district councillor Nick Smith, who complained that the scheme would turn the A326 into a dual carriageway.

Mr Tucker replied: "It will be a wider single carriageway - not a dual carriageway.

"However, Hampshire County Council will have the ability to mark the road out as four lanes in the future if it so wishes."

After the hearing Cllr Smith said Marchwood would be cut off from the New Forest by four lanes of fast-moving traffic.

A county council spokesman said: "ABP came forward with the proposal, which gives us the scope to create four lanes should we wish to do so.

"All our other objections to the Dibden Bay scheme remain in force."

DAY 70: Hearing told of £1bn rail bill THE Strategic Rail Authority won't be taking sides in Associated British Ports's battle to build a new container port at Dibden Bay.

On day 70 of the public inquiry into the scheme, SRA spokesman John Chapman said it had no preference for ABP's Dibden Bay scheme over rival container port proposals now on drawing boards around the country.

"Whichever ports succeed in capturing trade, we will try and provide them with as much rail capacity as possible," said Mr Chapman.

He added that at least a year's further investigation was needed into the possibility of upgrading the Southampton to West Midlands rail route to allow the use of larger and longer freight trains - an essential part of the Dibden Bay scheme.

"The emerging cost for the enhancement work needed to increase container freight capacity on the route is in the order of £1bn," said Mr Chapman. If the current proposals don't meet value and affordability criteria, the scope of the project may have to be reduced."

ABP counsel Martin Kingston said: "I don't expect you to tell prospective customers that it is all very uncertain and a risk. That's not the way to inspire confidence. The language of your own strategy is firm on the inclusion of the Southampton-West Midlands up-grade at the earliest opportunity."

Mr Chapman said that the SRA - the body which advises how public money should be spent on the rail network - was trying to learn from past mistakes.

He said: "We won't go into an enhancement programme without the full facts."

ABP received a blow this week from the Inspector himself. Michael Hurley revealed on Thursday afternoon that he would not be supporting ABP's pill-sweetening plans for a park-and-ride scheme into Southampton from the outskirts of the Dibden Bay site.

He said: "It is certainly a possibility that I would recommend to the Secretary of State that the park-and-ride scheme should not proceed, on the basis that it is in the New Forest Heritage area - a particularly sensitive site."

Archive Home