One woman’s crusade costs her £173k

Penelope Uprichard, described in court as a “lady of some means”, was told by appeal judges yesterday that those who pursue action through the courts must do so with their eyes open and expect to meet the cost if they fail.

Miss Uprichard, who challenged Scottish ministers’ approval of Fife Council’s plans to develop the west side of St Andrews, branded the result a “denial of natural justice” and said she was considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday’s case was Miss Uprichard’s third unsuccessful attempt to overturn planning decisions affecting her home town. But she said the hefty legal bill would not stop her campaigning against developments that she believes blight the beauty of St Andrews.

“I think the decision on costs is intended to be the strongest possible deterrent to anybody questioning a structure or other similar plan. It is a denial of natural justice. I think it is extraordinarily unfair that one person should have all these costs ordered against them,” said Miss Uprichard, a “pretty aged” retired hospital public relations officer.

She added: “It is an appalling amount. It will mean a complete change to my life. I am considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Miss Uprichard said she has received pledges of £33,000 towards her bill. “St Andrews has been here for 800 years, and I am appalled at the plans for it, and so are many people,” she said.

In 2000, Miss Uprichard and five other objectors failed in an attempt to halt a £50 million golf course development in St Andrews Bay, which they described as a blot on the landscape.

Three years ago, she fought the erection of 28 pay-and-display parking ticket machines which she was convinced would blight the unique character of the town centre. Again, she lost.

In her latest campaign against the council’s structure plan, her application was initially rejected by a judge in the Court of Session in Edinburgh before she lost an appeal before three judges, headed by Lord Gill.

Lawyers for Miss Uprichard revealed that her own expenses in the case amounted to £55,000.

They conceded that she was liable for the expenses of Scottish ministers, some £58,000, but contested a request by Fife Council for its expenses of £60,000.

“Counsel submitted that the council had no sufficiently independent interest and had not taken a separate line of defence,” said Lord Gill in a judgment yesterday. “[Miss Uprichard] was voicing the concerns of a significant section of the local community. She was litigating for the good of St Andrews.”

Lord Gill also noted that lawyers for Miss Uprichard asked the court to take into account the Aarhus Convention, a UN convention intended to spare litigants in environmental cases from a heavy burden of costs.

However, Lord Gill said the litigation was about the council’s structure plan, including a housing development, a science park and a business park in the town.

Miss Uprichard had a “root and branch” objection, effectively that it should all happen anywhere in Fife except St Andrews.

The judge held the council’s case had been reasonable.

“I see no reason to withhold from the council the expenses which it seeks. 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,” said Lord Gill.