A PENSIONER, who has been waging a single-handed campaign against development plans in the historic town of St Andrews, is going to the UK Supreme Court in London despite already facing financial ruin.
Penny Uprichard failed twice to convince Scottish judges in the Court of Session in Edinburgh they should stop Government-approved plans to allow builders to increase the size of the Fife town by up to one-quarter.
She is already facing a legal bill of £173,000 for her action and subsequent appeal, both of which were thrown out in Edinburgh.
However, the Supreme Court in London is allowing her to raise the substantive issues of the development as well as costs.
The decision is likely to increase the Scottish Government's concern about the Supreme Court's role in the administration of Scottish justice.
The go-ahead for a minimum of 1000 new houses in the west of what is one of Scotland's most globally renowned tourist locations was given in Fife Council's 20-year planning blueprint.
Ms Uprichard claims the Scottish Government's approval of Fife Council's structure plan in May 2009 had misrepresented a strategic study that found there was room for limited expansion to the west of town, on 55 acres.
She argues the development would instead need 267 acres and that not enough weight was given to the massive number of objections from the public or to the environmental arguments against the proposal.
She told the Herald yesterday: "I am pleased it is now going to the Supreme Court.
"I was very disappointed by the two decisions in the Scottish courts.
"I thought that after my appeal decision I couldn't go any further and I had been looking forward to having a quieter life.
"But when the ruling about costs came out, it wasn't just about costs but opened up aspects of the case.
"So I have raised this with the Supreme Court and they have accepted that."
She believes it may be six months before she appears at the Supreme Court but is applying now for a protective costs order to limit the amount the other side, Fife Council and the Scottish Government, could claim.
Ms Uprichard, a retired public relations executive with a London hospital, had earlier been described in the Court of Session as a "lady of some means but not a person of great wealth".
However, Lord Gill, as Lord Justice Clerk the second most senior judge in Scotland, ruled she should pay the expenses after losing the case to halt the plans.
In December, he said: "Those who challenge decisions of this nature enter into litigation with their eyes open.
"They have to expect that, if they should fail, the normal consequence will be that they will be liable in expenses."
A fighting fund was set up by her supporters, which raised £33,000.
The issue of costs has been put on hold pending the outcome of her Supreme Court appeal.
However, her huge legal bill is now being examined in Europe.
As the Herald reported last month, a complaint about the level of the costs she faces has been lodged in Brussels under a United Nations convention designed to help people to take on governments and corporations.
Under the UN's Aarhus Convention, which is ratified by the EC and to which the UK is a signatory, members of the public should be able to pursue environmental causes against companies and governments without prohibitive costs being levied.
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "We do not comment on individual cases."
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