Campaigners demand greater support for those who fight to preserve Scotland's built heritage
The proposed demolition of Perth City Hall and the award of £173,000 costs against a St Andrews heritage campaigner is evidence that officialdom is systematically demolishing the building blocks of Scotland's heritage, it has been claimed.
The threat to Perth City Hall has been given as an example of Scotland's attitude towards its heritage.
- By Michael Alexander
- Published in the Courier : 30.01.12
- Published online : 30.01.12 @ 01.34pm
David Black, a member of the Historic Building Trust, believes that even the legal system in Scotland would seem to be biased against those who seek to protect our heritage.
He believes this has been no less evident than in Perth where he believes the threat to Perth City Hall is down to a ''feckless council''. He also cites the example of St Andrews resident Penny Uprichard as she continues her single-handed campaign against massive development plans.
The comment came as Glasgow-based environmental lawyer Ewan Kennedy expressed his view that the award of £173,000 expenses against Miss Uprichard is a ''sorry story'' that reflects badly on our legal system at a time when the countryside is faced with numerous applications for developments and people are becoming more environmentally aware.
Ms Uprichard was inundated with calls after it was revealed last year her lone stance against government plans to allow builders to increase the size of the Fife town by up to one third left her facing a £173,000 court bill and potential financial ruin. Heritage campaigners have backed her fight and 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.
The complaint is about the level of costs Ms Uprichard faces after a three-year campaign against the St Andrews West scheme failed in the Court of Session. 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.
It was also confirmed last year that the European Commission is taking the UK Government to the EU Court of Justice over the high costs of challenges.
Under EU law, the possibility of challenging decisions affecting the environment should be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.
Writing in a national newspaper, Mr Black states: ''I have been involved in many campaigns to save historic buildings over the past 40 years but I fear we are now returning to the 1960s and 1970s as far as official attitudes to built heritage are concerned … The latest outrage is the proposed demolition of Perth City Hall, courtesy of a feckless council which simply messed up by entering into a relationship with a private sector company, while turning down fully funded alternatives. The cost of demolishing this B-listed Edwardian treasure will be more than the cost of retaining it.''
Mr Kennedy highlighted the Uprichard case during a speech to an environmental action group in the west of Scotland. He said: ''Last year was a disastrous one for environmental litigants in the Scottish courts. The second half of the year saw the widely reported failure of attempts to stop the Aberdeen Ring Road, a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston and the St Andrews West development plan … Unfortunately, these three cases were not unusual.''
09.32am - 31.01.2012 Eoin Ryan - Glenrothes, Scotland Report This
Ms Uprichard has lost at the High Court, lost at the Court of Session. Neither found any merit in her case. If she wants to portray herself as a victim, that's fine, but the reality appears to be closer to her being a frivolous litigant. Lest we forget, she also lost a challenge to parking meters
07.43pm - 31.01.2012 Thornindaside - perth, scotland Report This
Would have thought the people living now in St Andrews would be better placed to judge whether Ms Uprichards actions were the result of being a frivilous litigant.Were the rulings against her as having no merit because there is no basis in law to allow for there being some merit..
Add a comment