A COMMUNITY is rallying round a pensioner who waged a single-handed campaign against development plans in a historic Scottish town as she prepares to take her case to the United Nations.

Penny Uprichard's three-year campaign to a scheme to increase the size of St Andrews by up to one quarter failed in the Court of Session and she was left with a £173,000 legal bill.

Residents of the town have already raised £33,000 for Ms Uprichard, who is facing financial ruin after taking up the fight to preserve the picturesque Fife tourist spot.

Now supporters are considering how they can boost her war chest as she seeks to take her case to Geneva under the Aarhus Convention, which was set up to help members of the public pursue environmental causes against companies and governments.

Last week the convention's committee in Switzerland heard a case involving residents' concerns that Edinburgh's trams will add to pollution, and Ms Uprichard's case was raised as a separate example of an individual's struggle.

Ms Uprichard said: "I am considering an appeal to the Supreme Court and also appealing under the Aarhus Convention. I am taking legal advice on my next move but have to take costs into consideration."

Graham Wynd, of the St Andrews Preservation Trust, which has already pledged money to Ms Uprichard's fund, said: "We are hugely supportive of the stance Penny has taken.

"She alone has had the courage of her convictions to pursue this in a way many of us would not consider. There is a strong sense of admiration in the community for all that Penny has done.

"She has the support of the community and her view is very much in line with most of the residents. It is a very large proportion of the population that objected."

More than 2500 people from the population of 21,000 objected to the new development to the west of St Andrews. More are now expected to "stand up and be counted".

Patrick Marks, of St Andrews Community Council, said it had also given cash backing to Ms Uprichard and that "support generated for her is strong".

He said there were many individual objectors who may feel now is the time to become involved financially and a campaign could be organised.

He said: "Penny has been a very solid student of this issue. Her response to a huge legal bill is typical of the way she comes back. Other people will perhaps feel this is an issue that needs to be supported."

The Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland has also given her financial and moral support.

APRS director John Mayhew said: "This case demonstrates that Scotland still has some way to go before ordinary citizens have real access to environmental justice.

"Most such cases are still taken by developers acting in their own interests rather than by campaigners such as Penny acting in the public interest and on behalf of future generations.

"It seems wrong that access to justice for ordinary citizens depends more on the depth of their wallets than on the strength of their arguments."

Ms Uprichard challenged Fife Council and the Scottish Ministers – who approved the blueprint – over plans that include building more than 1000 new houses on a 44-acre development to the west of the town.

Ms Uprichard said there was no need or justification for this "massive" amount of housing, adding it would "destroy the historic fabric of the town" while other objectors branded the 20-year blueprint a "developers' charter".

Regarding the legal bill, which she describes as an "enormous worry", she said: "I feel this is very sad. I feel the court judgment was like a punishment and that I was impertinent for even challenging this."

In court her lawyer argued she was "voicing the concerns of a significant section of the local community", adding: "She had no patrimonial interest in the issue. She was litigating for the good of St Andrews."

Ms Uprichard, a retired public relations executive with a London hospital, was described as a "lady of some means but not a person of great wealth."

But Lord Gill, as Lord Justice Clerk the second most senior judge in Scotland, ruled she should pay the expenses after losing the case to halt the plans.

He said: "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."