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.

St Andrews pensioner’s Supreme Court fight against development

Penny Uprichard will make her case at the Supreme Court in Westminster.
Penny Uprichard will make her case at the Supreme Court in Westminster.

A St Andrews pensioner’s David v Goliath struggle to protect her beloved home town from a “tsunami” of development will be heard by the UK Supreme Court in London next week.

Veteran campaigner Penny Uprichard failed twice to convince Scottish judges in the Court of Session in Edinburgh they should stop Scottish Government-approved plans to allow builders to increase the size of St Andrews by up to one-quarter.

Now judges at the Supreme Court will decide whether the proposals for a minimum of 1,000 houses, a business and science parks and a distributor road on the western edge of St Andrews should be thrown out despite being granted permission as part of Fife Council’s 20-year planning blueprint.

If she loses, Miss Uprichard could face considerable financial difficulties.

She is already facing a legal bill of £173,000 for her action and subsequent appeal, both of which were thrown out in Edinburgh. This bill, and more, could still have to be paid.

However, the Supreme Court allowed her to raise the substantive issues of the development as well as costs.

And last year Miss Uprichard made legal history when the Supreme Court confirmed that she was being awarded a Protective Costs Order for the Supreme Court part of her case of £6,000.

This means that, if she loses, the other parties Fife Council and the Scottish Government can only claim £3,000 each.

It compares with the first two Protective Expenses Orders in Scotland, which limited costs to £40,000 and £30,000 respectively, which Miss Uprichard says made legal action “impossible for most people.”

Miss Uprichard claims the Scottish Government’s approval of Fife Council’s structure plan in May 2009 had misrepresented the Alison Grant Study commissioned and published by Fife Council in 2003 that found there was room for limited expansion to the west of the town, on 55 acres.

She argued the development would instead need 242 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.