Campaigners against a controversial leisure and homes plan for the King Alfred site at Hove have failed in a High Court bid to derail the scheme. Mr Justice Newman dismissed challenges to the Local Plan, which makes provision for the scheme.

He rejected all challenges to the scheme and made an order that the protester who led the challenge should pay £7,500 towards Brighton and Hove City Council's legal costs in defending the action.

The challenge had been brought by John Nigel Furness, with another well-known campaigner Morris Abrahams acting as his adviser.

The two men, both from Hove, challenged the Local Plan, claiming among other things that it did not comply with Government guidance and there had not been proper consultation.

The judge made the costs order against Mr Furness even though he told the court he was living on disability benefit.

The judge told Mr Furness: "This is public money which has been spent by the council in successfully resisting the claim.

"It is very difficult to see why you should not pay the costs."

He said he believed the real figure behind the litigation was Mr Abrahams, who was a "man of means".

He said the council could ask the court to order an inquiry into the situation if they wished.

There could, he said, be separate proceedings to decide whether Mr Abrahams had deliberately not made himself a party to the proceedings in order to avoid liability for costs.

The case itself was a challenge to the council's approval for the £220 million scheme, designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry, for the site at Kingsway, Hove.

It includes a £48 million sports centre and 754 flats. The flats would be built in two towers which would rise to 60m and 75m and be surrounded by eight blocks up to 11 storeys high.

In yesterday's hearing the council argued the planning inspector who dealt with the proposals had found "no intrinsic planning objection" and considered the current buildings on the King Alfred site had "few claims to merit retention."

The council said the inspector had fully considered all objections and accepted the principle of redevelopment and that his decision should be backed by the court.