CRITICISM of the first part of the official inquiry report into the Harris superquarry was growing yesterday, just a week before all responses are due to be submitted to the Scottish Office.

The Herald has learned that there is serious concern within Scottish Natural Heritage, which opposes the quarry, about the 600- plus pages produced so far by Miss Gillian Pain, formerly chief public inquiry Reporter at the Scottish Office. But SNH's Edinburgh headquarters was closed yesterday and nobody was available to comment.

Meanwhile, Mr Brian Stewart, the chief executive of the Western Isles Council, which supported the quarry until the day before the inquiry's conclusion when it reversed its position to opposition, will present a report to his councillors. Mr Stewart argues that it is difficult to understand in the first part of Miss Pain's report what is a statement of fact and what represents her own findings.

Yesterday The Herald published extracts from the first section of the report. The second section, in which Miss Pain will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to whether he should uphold the planning permission granted in 1993 to Redland Aggregates to establish Europe's largest coastal superquarry at Lingerbay in south Harris, is expected to be finalised later in the summer.

Throughout the report she presents her findings on a huge range of issues.

For example, in paragraph 11.200 she comments on arguments surrounding the significance of Harris being part of a National Scenic Area designation: ''As a matter of fact, I find no basis for the SNH contention that NSA policy imposes a presumption against development in nationally designated areas. I also find no substance to the claim that in relation to mineral extraction, it must be demonstrated that either the exploitation of the resource was absolutely necessary in the public interest, or that there were no alternative means of supply.''

This is the type of comment which has annoyed Mr Stewart. ''I feel that the tone and approach of the 'Findings of Fact' cause unwelcome confusion because they often seem to stray into what we might expect from Part Two, ie judgments and conclusions.

''The fact that the Reporter is throwing in her own judgments and conclusions amongst her findings on the judgments and conclusions of those that presented evidence to the inquiry will inevitably tempt responses which include counter-arguments.

''Participants will be encouraged to rehearse or bolster their arguments. It is a concern that the approach taken by the Reporter could encourage other participants to submit comments which are tantamount to leading new evidence.''