Council awarded only half of Kingask legal cost

The Courier, 23 May 2000

Fife Council has been awarded only 50% of the considerable expense it incurred in the recent Court of Session judicial review action raised over the Kingask scheme near St Andrews.

The decision has been made by Lord Bonomy, who heard several days of submissions by a group of objectors and who has made it plain that he was unhappy over aspects of the local authority’s role in the affair.

It was made clear at the end of the legal action-which challenged the granting of planning permission by the council that Lord Bonomy was rejecting the case put forward by the petitioners, and the planning permission would stand.

The next and final stage of the proceedings was the hearing on expenses, and Lord Bonomy has stated that in the circumstances of the action he was "departing from the normal rule" that expenses followed success.

The petition was rejected due to the delay of the objectors in raising the legal action, but in his judgment Lord Bonomy was critical of aspects of the the council’s handling of the matter.

He said that, had it been necessary to do so, he would have accepted the submission for the petitioners that the council "had not given adequate reasons for granting the application" in respect that they had not stated clearly what their position was in relation to the development plan.

Lord Bonomy also raised several points over the matter of provision of an environmental statement in relation to Kingask.

He said the council "had pointedly failed to say" that it was an assessment of the likely impact on the environment that led to the decision that a statutory environmental statement was not required.

Lord Bonomy said it had been stated by the council’s legal representative that the decision had not been recorded anywhere, the council could not say if it had been made after one meeting or several, it could not say what officials were involved or on what basis the decision was made.

Yesterday Fife Council’s strategic development committee chairman, Councillor Bill Brand, said that the legal dispute was one that the council had not sought.

He said the court’s decision to dismiss the case had shown the council had been successful in defending its position that the planning decision was sound. However, he added. "Of course I would have preferred the council not to have met any of the legal expenses involved."

Last night a spokeswoman for the petitioners, Miss Penny Uprichard, said that even when the case had been lost those behind it thought it had been worthwhile to raise the action. "I am sure that the reduction in the award of expenses to the council, and the comments of Lord Bonamy, will confirm this view.

"Judicial review involves an enormous amount of effort and money and it will probably be a long time before St Andrews sees another. We know now it can be done and can be effective."