St Andrews campaigner wins her day in the Supreme Court

A local campaigner has won the right to present her case against proposed developments in St Andrews before the UK Supreme Court.

Penny Uprichard has also been granted a Protective Costs Order (PCO) of £6000, meaning that other parties can only claim £3000 each should she lose.

It is believed that this may be the first time a PCO has been awarded by the Supreme Court for a Scottish case.

The hearing is now scheduled to go ahead on March 5 and 6 next year.

This is just the latest stage of Ms Uprichard’s campaign against plans to build new housing, a science park, a business park and a distributor road to the west of the town.

Previously, she has taken her case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh where it was defeated.

She told the Citizen this week: “If I lose, I will probably have to find at least £50,000 in addition to the balance of the costs of £173,000 awarded against me after the appeal hearing.

“Therefore, I am appealing to everyone who has visited St Andrews, lived here or played golf here to consider contributing to “The Challenge Fund.

“Now that our structure and local plans have been approved, this is the only way in which it may be possible to prevent a tidal wave of development which will overwhelm this historic town.

“The huge price of environmental litigation emphasises the serious doubts many people have about democracy in our planning system: individuals who want to challenge the views of unelected officials risk the imposition of ruinous and potentially life-changing costs.

“St Andrews has been here for 800 years and I do not believe that its history should be ended in such a shoddy way - by massive development for doubtful economic gain, proposed by St Andrews University and taken forward by Fife Council and the Scottish government.

“I am only one of millions of people who have cherished the Scottish landscape over centuries. The fact that 72 per cent of it is now subject to visual impact is an indictment of our lack of respect for the land, which is seen merely as a development opportunity.”