Campaigners against the proposed stadium at Kingsford near Westhill had appealed to the courts to halt the £50 million development.
But a judge yesterday gave the green light to the project, which will replace Pittodrie as the home of the Dons.
Opponents have branded the development as an incursion into green belt land, saying alternative sites were available. Aberdeen FC chairman Stewart Milne said: “The outcome of the judicial review is welcome news for the club, the council and the wider region.
“We’ve already been engaging positively with local residents and community groups who support our plans.
“But following today’s decision, we will reach out to the whole community, even those who have objected to the plans, so that we can work positively with them to deliver a community sports hub that meets their aspirations, best-in-class football training facilities and, ultimately, a stadium that the whole region can be proud of.”
Aberdeen City Council granted planning permission for the stadium and training facilities in April last year.
The decision was challenged by a group called No Kingsford Stadium, who say the council failed to show there were no other available alternatives to the site. However, Lord Tyre at the Court of Session concluded: “In my opinion the petitioner has not identified an error of law in the approach of the council that would entitle this court to interfere with its decision to grant planning permission for the proposed development.”
No Kingsford Stadium reacted to the decision by expressing disappointment at the outcome of the judicial review. The group has not ruled out taking the case to the Supreme Court.
The campaign group said in a statement: “We will now take time to consider matters with our legal team before deciding on [the] next best steps.
“Meantime, we take this opportunity to thank our many supporters, from across the community, who have given their time and financial backing to the No Kingsford Stadium campaign.”
An Aberdeen City Council spokesman said: “We note the outcome of the judicial review and welcome the court’s ruling that a robust planning process was followed.”