PLANS to extract an extra 90,000 tonnes of sand from a Headley sandpit looked set to get the nod this week, despite massive local opposition.

Operators of the Rabbitfield Hill sandpit, S Grundon (Ewelme) Ltd, submitted plans to Hampshire County Council seeking permission to extract the sand from Baigents Hill, adjacent to the existing pit, although work at that pit has now ceased.

On Wednesday the council's regulatory committee was due to make a decision on the application with chief planning advisor Peter Chadwick recommending that it be granted permission.

The recommendation comes despite massive opposition from parish councils, local residents, county councillor John Filer, and South East Water.

Mr Chadwick's report to the committee said: "The proposal is to extract about 90,000 tonnes of sand over a period of about two years. The applicant states this would be an extension to Rabbitfield Hill Sand Quarry.

"Restoration would be to agriculture and woodland at a lower level. Access would be via the existing haul road to Grooms Farm Quarry, where sand would be processed.

"Following a survey of badger activity, the application was amended to retain the bank and trees along the site boundary next to the River Slea."

The officer's report says that East Hampshire District Council, Headley Parish Council, Binsted Parish Council and Dockenfield Parish Council all object to the plans, on the basis that the Rabbitfield Hill quarry is not active so it is not an extension of an existing site.

All also point out that the site does not physically adjoin the former pit, therefore not adding up to an extension, and that the proposed area for sand extraction lies outside the boundary where it is permitted.

On top of this, Kingsley Parish Council questions whether the relatively small amount of sand will "make any impact on the county sand reserves" while most of the councils said that the plan will result in the loss of important trees.

South East Water objected to the application because of the site's proximity to the public water supply source, the bore holes in Headley, as it is within the source protection zone defined by the Environment Agency.

But the Environment Agency has not raised an objection.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England has registered its opposition to the plans along with John Filer and 17 local residents.

However, despite their concerns, Mr Chadwick said that the benefits of extracting the sand outweigh the negative concerns.

His report said: "Objections have been raised on the grounds that it is not an extension, because sand extraction has already ceased at that site. However, the application site is adjacent to Rabbitfield Hill and served by the same haul road.

"The proposed method of working would be the same in that the sand would be taken to Grooms Farm for processing and despatch.

"The original proposal involved the removal of the oak trees and bank along the site boundary with the River Slea. This has been amended because of the presence of badger setts and these trees and bank are proposed to remain. This has reduced the amount of sand which could be extracted.

"It is considered that the mitigation measures proposed are acceptable and conditions can secure suitable protection for the trees.

"The concerns from South East Water concerning the Source Protection Zone are noted. However, it is the Environment Agency which defines the Protection Zones and has policies for their protection. The Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to conditions concerning storage of fuels and maintenance of machinery.

"With regard to need, the current requirement is for the county council to maintain a land bank of reserves of sand and gravel sufficient for seven years' production.

"The current position is that the reserves of sand and gravel are sufficient for about five years. However, the reserves of soft sand, which is the resource in this application, are lower at about three and a half years.

"Consequently, there is a need for further reserves of soft sand.

"Although only a small site, as an additional satellite reserve for an existing quarry, this would be a useful addition.

"In conclusion, it is recommended to grant planning permission because there is a need for further sand reserves.

"Concerns about protection of trees to be retained, protection of badger setts and water resources can be safeguarded by conditions.

"The environmental impact would be acceptable taking into account the relatively short period of operation."

If the committee followed the officer's recommendation, Grundon would have until March 31, 2005, to remove the sand.