CONCERN that Teignmouth Docks may be using existing storage sheds for unrelated port use was dismissed by owner Associated British Ports at the end of the two-day public inquiry into expansions at the 200-year-old site.

In closing statements in the inquiry at Bitton House on Wednesday, counsel for ABP, Timothy Comyn said: 'If we were indulging in any sort of unrelated port activity, we would have Teignbridge down on us like a tonne of bricks.'

Mr Comyn was responding to points raised by objectors Teignmouth Action Group (TAG), Teignmouth and Shaldon Environment Society (TSES) and Tony Brown, a speaker at the inquiry.

Mr Brown said that the blending plant at Mole Valley Farmers' shed on the quay was like a 'Trojan Horse,' in setting a precedent for commercial business at the site, while Bob Shaw of TAG commented: 'It is not just a transit shed.

'Such an industrial installation represents a value-adding manufacturing process and not a mere interruption in the transmission of goods between exporter and importer.'

But Mr Comyn said that Mole Valley Farmers 'are involved in port related activity. It is the case that a small amount of fertilizer is being brought in. It is bagged but one has to focus on the predominant use which is the shipping of fertilizer.'

As part of the £4 million development of the site, Teignmouth Quay Company Ltd, a subsidiary of ABP, wants to introduce Article 16 to allow the owner to appropriate part of the quay for use and accommodation of any particular trade, person, vessel or goods.

But protestors say that the proposed additional storage sheds that will partially block the view of residents in Alexandra Terrace should be for port related business.

Environment society president, Michael Hewling said: 'Any shed space should be used for goods in transit and not for other purposes.

'We would ask the secretary of state to look at Article 16. As we look at it, it would allow the company to hire off parts at will as it were.'

But Mr Comyn argued that 'it would give us nothing in terms of planning more than we have already got'.

On day one of the inquiry, port manager Colin Greenwell said that consideration had been given to Teignmouth residents. He said that while the proposed canopied shed will mean 'a partial loss of view from a relatively small number of houses, particularly nos. One to 11 Alexandra Terrace, these properties would be afforded greater protection from noise and dust from the quay workings.'

Flexibility in berthing arrangements created by the development will also help to protect houses from dust nuisance, he added.

The application for the Harbour Provision Order includes filling in Dock No. 1 and the extension of the western quay to 300 metres to cater for the new trend of larger but fewer ships using the port.

Polly Steps will be relocated in the plans along with a new 20 metre public quay, agreed by Teignbridge Council.

Storage sheds to allow an extra 50,000 tonnes per annum to be handled at the port will also be constructed.

Mr Hewling said that while the environment society agreed to the modernisation of the quay, the proposed additional length of western quay should be reduced by 27 metres to reduce throughput and lessen impact of heavy goods traffic.

He suggested a traffic management order should be in place – a suggestion echoed by Mr Shaw, despite evidence put forward in the environment statement that traffic would increase by an average of 19 vehicles per day.

In answer to objectors' claims that in creating a more 'usable port,' there would be the creation of a busier port, Mr Greenwell said: 'There is a natural capacity built on berth availability, tides, importers' shed space and our ability to discharge ships at a given time.

'There is a constraint that a ship can only leave and arrive on the tide,' he added.

Photographs and home video evidence submitted by Teignmouth Action Group were shown on day one of the inquiry showing vessels belching out black smoke, clay dust travelling toward the town, congestion of port traffic on the public highway, noisy late at night workings and quayside cleaning washing debris into the estuary.

But in evidence, Mr Greenwell, ABP Port manager explained that steps had been taken to address bad practice and the proposals will address current problems.

As part of the development, Teignmouth Quay Company Ltd – a subsidiary of ABP, will install an Environment Agency agreed sump to collect debris from quayside washings.

Objector Tony Brown said that what was being discussed 'could have an awesome effect on what is bequeathed to our children.

'It does have a significant impact on what is a very special place and I don't topsoil that for future generations.'

Mr Brown said that port traffic would have be a burden on already overcrowded road systems and requested safeguards to secure the tourism and quality of life for locals in the resort.

He raised concern about the effect the proposals would have on the beaches and estuary.

Tim Wells, senior consultant for ABP Marine Environment Research Limited who compiled the independent environmental statement for the application stated that he had 'a high degree of confidence', in the statement that suggested the development would not present any further flood risk and the effects would be 'limited and localised.'

Though objectors said residents on the back beach may be affected by a loss of sand due to dredging, Mr Wells stressed that the report had been overlooked by statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency and harbour Commission.'

'We have done a substantial amount of work, local residents should take some comfort in the level of work carried out.'

The decision of the Inspector, Mike Ellison will be given at a later date.