A QUARRY firm is at loggerheads with the council over whether it has been told to stop works at a Peeblesshire site.

Scottish Borders Council (SBC) said it had instructed Stonepack Ltd to halt proceedings west of Slipperfield Loch, near West Linton, after concerns were raised over a potential breach of planning conditions.

But the company said it had not been told to stop, adding that the works had been carried out to meet requirements outlined when its bid was approved.

A spokesperson for the firm said: “Stonepack has not been instructed to stop works.

“Any works already carried out were pre-commencement works for the purposes of meeting planning condition requirements.

“For example, the full width of the access road required to be stripped to meet the archaeological condition.

“Activity on site was paused some weeks ago as these activities had been completed to date.”

Stonepack won an appeal to extract sand and gravel after its plans were rejected by SBC.

The local authority’s refusal was overturned by a Scottish Government reporter in March last year.

In allowing the development – which will extract 100,000 tonnes of material per year – there were 34 planning conditions imposed which must be completed in full and approved by SBC before the start of sand and gravel extraction.

On the recent works, an SBC spokesperson said: “The council understood that the ground stripping work was initially being carried out as part of works which were required to inform the applicant’s response, to a planning condition, covering archaeological investigations.

“However, it has been determined that the groundworks went beyond any trial trenching and the applicants have been instructed to stop these works.”

The SBC spokesperson added: “Works should now have ceased on site and should not commence until all relevant suspensive planning conditions have been discharged.”

Tweeddale West councillor Drummond Begg urged Stonepack to “take great care in following the reporter’s conditions” due to the site’s proximity to “an important ecological area”.

A spokesperson for campaign organisation Quarry Action Group said: “Any observer passing the site will observe a large mechanical digger has created a track by removing turf, a contractor has installed ground reinforcement mess, drainage pipes, conducted tree felling, supplied crushed type one aggregate, and a service track, which is not shown on the approved plan.”

Permitted activities include drilling to establish water table datum levels and scraping for archaeological survey purposes.

The campaign group spokesperson said: “We remain vigilant as a group and encourage any followers to disclose any findings which may appear to be contrary to the planning conditions.”

The Stonepack spokesperson added: “To avoid any potential for confusion, Stonepack shall continue to liaise with the planning authority in relation to future pre-commencement works.”