Council loses Edinburgh Marina court battle and could be forced to pay 'hundreds of thousands' in expenses

The £500m transformation of the Granton Marina will continue to go ahead.

Edinburgh City Council has lost its appeal against the developers of the Edinburgh Marina project.

Taxpayers could be faced with a bill in the hundreds of thousands after Edinburgh City Council lost their court battle with the developers of the Edinburgh Marina.

The court action surrounded the £500m transformation of the Granton Marina, including 427 full-serviced berths, more than 1,800 new homes and a Hyatt Regency Spa and Conference hotel.

The site has been the focus of a long-running legal battle between the council and the developers who had successfully appealed a decision to refuse an extension to 2023 of the existing planning permission, first granted in 2003.

Edinburgh City Council has lost its appeal against the developers of the Edinburgh Marina project.

That decision, made by the Scottish Government reporter Andrew Fleming in August 2019, was appealed by the council in the hope of allowing the council to draw up a renewed agreement around developer contributions to force the developers to hand over more cash to pay for infrastructure connected to the development.

The council argued that the extension of the planning permission by the reporter required a new legal agreement, labelling the one agreed upon in 2003 as “no longer fit for purpose”.

However, in the judgement, written by Lord Carloway, the court states the decision to grant an extension to the planning permission was the right one and that the section 75 legal agreement around developer contributions made in 2003 is still relevant and there is no requirement for a new agreement.

The judges, which included Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young, said ongoing planning applications from the developer on reserved matters linked to the site meant the reporter’s decision was correct, while the legal agreement was also being adhered to by the developers.

Lord Carloway wrote: “This was not the type of situation in which an outline permission had lain dormant for years and the application was one which was seeking to resurrect an unimplemented consent. It was a living permission involving a continuing process of reserved matter approvals over time.”

It is understood the defeat could mean the council is faced with a legal bill in the hundreds of thousands for the court costs and expenses of the developers and its own legal team.

In February, the council passed its own masterplan for Granton including 3,500 new homes, a school, and sustainable transport routes into the city centre including a tram link which is set to cost the authority £1.3bn.

Conservative councillor Jim Campbell criticised the council for taking the legal action.

He said: “We are very disappointed that this adversarial relationship has seemed to have built up between the council and the Marina.

“The opportunities are so great that working together would be massively in everyone’s interest. We were incredibly surprised that the council had embarked on the judicial review process.

“The council seemed to want to take the Scottish Government to court which is bizarre.”

Charles Price, a spokesperson for Edinburgh Marina Holdings said: "We have received confirmation that the ECC has lost its appeal to overturn last year's successful appeal to extend the wider masterplan consent.

“The Edinburgh Marina waterfront development forms an essential component of the ECC's £1.3bn Granton Waterfront Development Framework which was adopted by the Council on Wednesday 26 February 2020.

“There is now a great sense of relief that our proposals will now be able to deliver on the key objectives for the Development Framework, whilst spearheading the wider development and future success of Granton's Waterfront."

A Edinburgh City Council spokesman said: “We note the decision from the Court of Session to refuse the appeal, contrary to our and Scottish Minister’s submissions that it should be granted. The Council is currently considering the implications of this decision.”