The first phase of a major residential and commercial development at Brighton Marina has been backed by the High Court.
Patterson J rejected a claim by Robert Powell, whose home overlooks the seafront, that the development, which began in January, is a breach of the Brighton Marina Act 1968.
And the judge ruled that he failed to bring the case promptly, in circumstances where the Brighton Marina Company and its lessee of the marina, the West Quay Development Company Partnership, had already spent £16m on the development.
She ruled that the development was authorised by section 5 of the Brighton Marina Act and that the Marine Management Organisation had acted lawfully in issuing consent for the development to proceed last December.
But also rejecting the claim on the ground of promptness, she said: “It is clear that there has been significant investment in bringing forward the redevelopment scheme thus far.”
“That indicates a very substantial prejudice that would be occasioned should this claim be permitted. With that scale of investment it is no answer for the claimant to say that incurring such expenditure is simply a commercial risk inherent in the development. In those circumstances I find that the claim has not been brought with appropriate promptness.”
Powell, a member of the Marine Gate Action Group, had sought a declaration that both the first and second phases of the planned development of the outer harbour are ultra vires under the 1968 Act, an order quashing the decision of the Marine Management Organisation to approve the development under the act, and an injunction prohibiting work being carried out.
The first phase of the project involves an engineered basement, which will house an underground car park and provide a platform for the future residential and commercial development in phase two.
Brighton and Hove City Council initially granted planning permission in 2006, and granted a fresh consent in 2013. Work then commenced on 16 January, and Howell had argued that this was the appropriate trigger for time to start running for him to bring his claim.
However, the marina companies maintained that no environmental harm was alleged, and that the only challenge was brought under an alleged construction of the 1968 Act.
Powell v The Brighton Marina Company Ltd and ors Planning Court ( Patterson J) 27 June 2014
Matt Hutchings (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law) for the claimant
Richard Drabble QC and Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) for the first and second defendants
Sasha Blackmore (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) for the third defendant