Bizzy B Management Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council

A local authority exercising a statutory discretion to demolish a ruinous building is not irrational merely because another reasonable authority might allow more time for refurbishment. The court must assess the decision at the time it was made and recognise that administrative discretion permits a choice between reasonable courses.

A screening opinion requires careful and conscientious consideration of real environmental risks, but not a full environmental assessment or consideration of every merely possible impact. The word “practicable” in Part 31 Class A of the GPDO means feasible, doable or capable of accomplishment, not likely to happen. Judicial review of a planning decision remains a legality review and does not become a merits appeal because property or Convention rights are engaged.

Bizzy B Management Ltd owned a long-unoccupied and dilapidated office building. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council had served an agreed Building Notice under the Building Act 1984, and Bizzy B had elected demolition rather than repair. After prolonged redevelopment negotiations, the Council decided to continue demolition.

Bizzy B challenged that decision, the Council’s negative environmental screening opinion, and subsequent planning permission for demolition. The Council also sought a declaration that demolition was permitted development under Part 31 Class A of the GPDO. The central issues were whether the Council had acted irrationally or disproportionately, whether the screening opinion was lawful, whether “practicable” repair excluded permitted development, and whether the planning permission was affected by procedural unfairness, bias or public-law error.

1. February demolition decision. The challenge was arguable but failed on the merits. The applicable irrationality test was whether the decision was one which no sensible authority acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities could have adopted, applying Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014. The Council was entitled to consider the unappealed Building Notice, continuing detriment to local amenities, public pressure, uncertainty over funding and occupation, unresolved asbestos, the development agreement’s termination provisions, and costs already incurred. It was not required to confine itself to whether Stage 1 works might be completed.
2. The Article 1 First Protocol claim also failed. Enforcement of an unappealed Building Notice might not constitute an interference with property rights. If it did, the property was severely encumbered and the interference was justified by the public interest in protecting neighbourhood amenities and achieving finality. The margin of appreciation applied.
3. Screening opinion. The opinion was unusually brief but followed careful and conscientious consideration. Only real risks or serious possibilities of significant environmental effects had to be considered. Screening was not a merits assessment, a full assessment of environmental effects, or an environmental statement. The ecological, asbestos, dust and waste matters relied on by the claimant did not disclose an omitted real risk. The challenge therefore failed.
4. Permitted development. “Practicable” in Article A.1(b) of Part 31 Class A meant feasible, doable or capable of accomplishment. It did not mean that repair was likely to happen commercially. Repair works identified in the Building Notice were feasible, so the proposed demolition was not permitted development and the declaration was refused.
5. Planning permission. Judicial review remained concerned with legality, not planning merits, even though the decision affected property and Convention rights. The Planning Committee was not shown to have acted with closed minds or apparent bias. A Design and Access Statement was required, but a late statement could be incorporated without restarting the process where no prejudice resulted. Its partial deficiency did not justify quashing. The officer’s reports were imperfect, but the alternatives, sustainability, policy and representations were brought to the Committee’s attention. The challenge was unarguable.
6. Permission was refused on Grounds 2 and 3. Permission was granted on Ground 1, but substantive judicial review was refused. The declaration was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the proceedings’ costs, and no interim payment was ordered.

No appellate history is stated in the judgment. The judgment records earlier proceedings before Teesside Magistrates’ Court and interlocutory directions in the judicial review.