As Andy Murray was fighting for survival with Kei Nishikori in the US Open quarter-finals his mother was not in her usual place in the player’s box because she had instead been engaged in a battle of her own, one that she believes Scottish tennis cannot afford to lose.

More than 3000 miles away from Flushing Meadows Judy Murray spent the day in the dining room of a little hotel in the family’s home town of Dunblane arguing her case that Stirling Council had been mistaken in refusing planning permission for a complex that would contain state of the art tennis and golf facilities, but also, wherein lies the rub, a small but controversial housing development.

The timing of this public inquiry could not have been designed better to test her resolve, her appearance coinciding not only with the day of her younger son’s crucial match, but older son Jamie’s bid to reach the semi-finals in New York. In the event Jamie and partner Bruno Soares were more successful than the world’s second best player would be later in the day, but it is the fear that time is running out for their local tennis community to cash in on both her boys’ achievements that ensured there was only one place she could be.

Her bid, initially in partnership with golfer Colin Montgomerie - albeit he has now resorted to merely ‘phoning in continued support - but also with a local property developer who owns the land and wants to build those 19 houses to cover the project’s costs, has inevitably drawn considerable media attention.

Much coverage has either lazily portrayed the proposal as a sneaky bid to build houses upon the green-belt or, conversely, an attempt by NIMBYists to block ambition. The suggestion has also been that the resultant furore has riven the communities of Dunblane and Bridge of Allan asunder.

The reality was that whereas Dunblane.info, the Dunblane Community website, had breathlessly advised those concerned to ‘be early if you want a seat as there are only 150,’ there were fewer than 100 chairs in the room, the vast majority of which were available when Murray came to give her evidence. Peak occupancy was around 25, while by the day’s end the various lawyers and councillors lined up across the room from Murray and her fellow appellants out-numbered members of the public two to one. Some matters may arouse out-pourings of passion in Dunblane, the performances of the Murray brothers in particular, but this debate is not among them and it is, of course, much more nuanced than that in any case.

There are some ‘not in my back yard’ campaigners, while a handful of jealous locals would even poisonously suggest that greed lies behind Murray’s involvement or that she has been gulled into this by Machiavellian profiteers. However most opponents are simply people who have understandably, if perhaps misguidedly, been persuaded that further urbanisation of what is very much Scotland’s commuter belt is a problem in itself.

That appears to be the principal argument of officialdom, a case that might well be compared with those who defend their opposition to immigration on the basis of there being insufficient space available in a country that boasts vast tracts of unfarmed, unoccupied land.

There was meanwhile a moment of unintended humour during Murray’s cross-examination, as a community representative suggested that because 1.25 per cent of locals are involved in tennis, which is above the Scottish average of 0.96 per cent, this employment-generating, youth-inspiring, family-oriented venture should not happen in this area, but elsewhere in Scotland. To Murray’s credit she managed not to laugh and confined herself to the respectful observation that anything around the one per cent mark in terms of involvement is “absolutely horrendous.”

“This is where I want to put my energies. It’s a central location from which we can service the rest of the country,” this woman who is so closely associated with both Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, subsequently observed.

As to her motivation, that she favoured enduring this drab gathering over supporting her boys at the most vibrant of the year’s Grand Slams went a long way towards answering any scepticism or cynicism, while only the most closed minded of the few in attendance could fail to be persuaded of her sincerity in outlining her concern that what she rightly describes as a ‘golden age’ for her sport, will have no lasting benefit for the communities to which she and her family have remained committed.

In terms of sporting success the Murrays of Dunblane have over-shadowed all else in Scottish sport and British tennis over the past decade but, as lawyers and planners make hay while trawling through the minutiae, it seems ever more likely that their efforts will ultimately fail to be properly recognised in their own land.