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.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article