Consent Is Not Delivery: Why Consented Masterplans Stall, and What Moves Them Forward

Visualisation of WGA’s vision for Edinburgh Marina at Granton Harbour, Edinburgh.

Part 2 of the Granton Harbour series

Location Granton Harbour, Edinburgh Project Edinburgh Marina Uses consented Housing, hotel, marina, medical, retail, leisure and tourism Architect WGA

Wilson Gunn Architects has worked on Edinburgh Marina at Granton Harbour for over a decade. During that period, planning consent was obtained for a wide mix of uses. Very few of the consented developments have moved forward.

This is the context for Part 2 of our Granton Harbour series. The project raises a wider question for large developments: what needs to align after consent for a masterplan to become a deliverable programme?

The points below are wider delivery considerations raised by the project. They are not a claim that WGA has completed a separate study of each factor at Granton Harbour, or that any single factor explains the project’s progress.

introduction

Planning consent defines an important framework for development, but it does not complete the work needed to deliver a large mixed-use project.

In Part 2 of our Granton Harbour series, we consider the wider questions that arise between consent and construction: enabling infrastructure, phasing, changing costs, land control, operator requirements and the difference between an architectural proposition and a fundable development.

WGA has worked on Edinburgh Marina at Granton Harbour for over a decade. Planning consent was obtained for a mix of housing, hotel, marina, medical, retail, leisure and tourism uses. Very few of the consented developments have moved forward.

This article does not attribute that progress to any single cause. It sets out practical considerations that apply more broadly to complex, infrastructure-led development.

Consent sets a framework

Planning consent establishes an approved framework for development, subject to its conditions and obligations. It helps define what may be built and how the component parts relate to one another. It does not, by itself, secure funding, coordinate construction, assemble land or confirm that each use is ready to proceed.

Scottish Government research on site deliverability highlights the need to consider infrastructure, land control, viability and phasing alongside planning. These are practical delivery questions, not substitutes for a considered planning framework.

A masterplan can therefore have a clear design direction and a valid consent while still requiring further decisions before construction can begin.

Infrastructure comes early

Large mixed-use schemes depend on more than their buildings. Access, utilities, drainage, public spaces and other enabling works may need to be planned and delivered before particular buildings or uses can operate.

The order matters. Some infrastructure may serve several phases, while other works may be needed only when a specific phase begins. The timing affects cost, funding and the sequence in which development can proceed.

For each phase, the wider questions include what needs to be in place first, who is responsible for delivering it, and how it will be funded. Scottish planning guidance also recognises that obligations and delivery programmes can address infrastructure timing, phasing and funding arrangements.

Visualisation of WGA’s vision for the public realm and homes at Edinburgh Marina, Granton Harbour.

Viability changes over time

The development tested at consent may not have the same cost and value assumptions as the development considered years later. Construction costs, finance, market conditions and operator requirements can change during that period.

A consented masterplan is not, on its own, evidence that every phase remains viable under current conditions. Each phase may need to be reviewed against updated assumptions, without treating earlier estimates as current or fixed.

This is not a reason to abandon the original framework. It is a reason to understand where the gap lies, which parts remain feasible, and what choices could help a project proceed while respecting its overall purpose.

Sequence for delivery

Phasing is more than dividing a masterplan into construction packages. It sets out how separate phases can function, how shared infrastructure is provided and how the wider place remains coherent as it develops.

A useful sequence tests the dependencies between phases. It considers whether early development can operate on its own, what shared works it relies on, and how later phases connect to what is already in place.

These questions should be considered early. If phasing is left until after the core design is established, necessary changes may affect both the programme and the quality of the overall plan.

Attractive is not the same as fundable

Architecture sets out how a development can work spatially and visually. A fundable development also needs a credible route through cost, ownership, delivery responsibility and operation.

Land ownership and control can affect when a site is available and how different parts can be brought forward. Delivery partnerships may need to align around the land, infrastructure and specific uses. Operators and end users can also have requirements that influence design, cost and programme.

Those requirements are most useful when understood early. For a hotel, retail space, medical use or marina facility, operational needs may shape layouts, servicing, access and the relationship with other parts of the site. A planning consent does not, by itself, confirm that a particular operator or end user is committed.

Test options before costs harden

Value engineering is most effective when it is part of early decision-making. It allows the project team to test different ways to meet the design and operational requirements, compare their implications and understand which qualities are essential to the wider plan.

Used late, it can become a narrow exercise in reducing cost after key choices have already been made. Used from the outset, it can help teams compare options before those choices become difficult to change.

The aim is not to preserve every detail regardless of cost. It is to make informed decisions about what supports a workable, coherent development and how that can be achieved.

Keep the vision clear across phases

Large developments take time. Market conditions can shift, teams can change and individual buildings may need to be reconsidered. The masterplan needs to provide continuity without preventing practical changes.

Clear priorities help teams judge which parts of the vision must remain consistent and where there is room to adapt. This supports coordination between phases and helps new teams understand how their work fits into the larger place.

At Granton Harbour, consent established a mixed-use framework. Moving from that framework to delivery involves a broader set of questions about infrastructure, viability, phasing, land, operation and changing conditions. These are common considerations for complex development, not evidence of one single cause or a guaranteed route to construction.

We welcome discussion with project teams considering how a consented masterplan can progress towards delivery.