A PUBLIC inquiry inspector is now considering whether the £84 million relief road is vital - or if it will cause more harm than good.

Alan Gray sat at County Hall, Dorchester, yesterday to hear closing statements from both sides on road need and compulsory purchase and side-road orders.

Andrew Tait QC for the county council, said Weymouth and Portland and West Dorset councils both supported the road and felt it would have 'a very positive effect'.

There was also heavy public support for the scheme, which was 'demonstrably in the public interest', he said.

Mr Tait said the road was needed to reduce congestion, improve the reliability and dependability of journey times and for economic growth for the long-term future of Weymouth, Portland and Dorchester.

The road would also help deprived areas of Weymouth such as Melcombe Regis and parts of Westham and Littlemoor, he said, while the route was 'fundamental' to an integrated transport strategy.

Facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport would be improved, he said, and communities alongside the bypassed stretch of road would enjoy better living conditions. Safety would also be improved, with accident savings of £56.3 million over 60 years if the road is built, he said.

Extensive measures will mitigate landscape damage and only small areas of wildlife habitat would be lost to the road such as a piece of ancient woodland at Two Mile Coppice while the overall effect on agriculture was 'limited'.

Mr Tait said: "The scheme is urgently required to address problems that will otherwise continue and to assist in securing a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012."

But a very different picture was painted earlier by Charlie Hopkins for the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Woodland Trust, who said the need for the relief road and orders 'has neither been demonstrated nor established' while the road itself would do 'nothing to reduce congestion and delays'.

He said road alternatives that would be sustainable and far less damaging to the natural environment had not been sufficiently investigated while destruction of ancient woodland was 'a significant loss of public amenity'.

He said: "The proposed scheme is in conflict with national, regional and local policies and objectives to promote sustainable development. Should the scheme proceed, irreversible damage will be done to areas protected for the national interest and for the public benefit."

Graham Machin for Natural England said the scheme was 'both unnecessary and undesirable'. He said it involved substantial damage to important national and local interests, had limited advantages which could be achieved by other means and ran counter to modern transport policy.

Mr Machin said: "Although a commendable package of measures, part mitigation part compensation, has been worked out, the loss of ancient woodland can neither be mitigated nor compensated."

The inquiry was adjourned until March 11.