Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Quarry operator asks for English expert to hear Collessie plan appeal

Quarry operator asks for English expert to hear Collessie plan appeal

A quarry operator fighting for permission to move into the Howe of Fife has taken the unusual step of demanding an expert be drafted in from England to hear its appeal.

One of the leading objectors to the proposal for a quarry near Collessie is employed by the Scottish Government department dealing with the case.

Laird Aggregates’ legal agent Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie claimed there could be a perception of bias if one of Philip Hutchinson’s colleagues was appointed to decide whether to grant planning permission.

Mr Hutchinson is a reporter for the Government’s Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and his job involves determining such appeals.

He and wife Jane, chairwoman of Giffordtown Community Council, live just 100 metres from the site of the proposed quarry and are leading figures in the campaign against it.

In a letter to the DPEA, Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie associate Melanie Kane said the DPEA must avoid the risk of accusations of bias.

She said: “In light of the obvious relationship between Mr Hutchinson and the DPEA, we would submit that such a risk does exist and that steps ought to be taken to avoid that perception arising.

“In our view, this can be achieved effectively by appointment of an English inspector who has not previously handled a Scottish appeal.”

She stressed that no imputations were made against Mr Hutchinson’s professional integrity or criticism made of him exercising his right to object as an individual but that the DPEA should be mindful of how the situation may be viewed by the public.

Residents are fighting the plans of Forfar-based Laird Aggregates to extract two million tonnes of sand and gravel from 82 hectares of farmland at Kinloch Farm.

There are concerns about the impact on health from dust emissions and worries about noise, visual impact and road safety, with heavy goods vehicles using the narrow B937.

Fife Council’s North-East Fife area committee refused planning permission on the grounds of detrimental visual impact, significant cumulative effects on residential amenity, road safety and visual amenity, trees would have to be removed and there was no evidence of a deficiency of aggregates for the construction industry.

Laird Aggregates, however, has accused the committee of unreasonable behaviours and claims there is no justifiable reason to refuse planning permission for the quarry which it said would create and support jobs.

Mr Hutchinson said the identity of the reporter appointed was of no concern to objectors as long as they had sufficient experience for such a complex case.

He said: “This would not be the first time one Scottish Government reporter has appeared before another Scottish Government reporter in order to legitimately defend the tranquility of his own home.

“However, I accept all the reservations expressed by Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie.

“Despite the polarity, my wife and I believe that we continue to enjoy cordial relations with our opposition.

“We both agree that perceptions are everything in situations like this. Both sides of this discussion will want a decision that is free of challenge in the courts.”

A DPEA spokeswoman confirmed that the request had been received.

She said that Fife Council had been asked for its view on the proposal and that a decision would be made shortly on whether a reporter would be appointed internally or externally.