COUNCIL FORCED TO TEAR DOWN LANDMARK BUILDING

A council was left with no realistic alternative when it decided to tear down a local landmark, the High Court heard today (Thu).

Billingham House, the abandoned former ICI building in Billingham is set to be demolished on the orders of Stockton Borough Council.

The council say that the nine-story office block is a dangerous drug den, plagued by arson, graffiti and drug use.

But its owners say the local authority is pressing ahead with demolition despite a genuine prospect that it could be refurbished.

Lawyers for both sides are presenting their cases at the High Court in London this week as part of a judicial review of the council’s decision.

Bizzy B, which owns Billingham House, says the council acted irrationally when it decided to enforce a demolition order in February.

It also claims the planning process under which the council granted permission for the building be levelled was biased.

The company says it has reached a viable agreement with office refurbishment specialists Python Properties to overhaul the building.

But today Andrew Tabachnik, representing the council, said the local authority was left with no choice but to press ahead with demolition.

He said the council there were major doubts about the refurbishment plan submitted by Bizzy B and Python, particularly in relation to funding and asbestos.

Under the terms of the plan, Python is in charge of the overall project, but Bizzy B will is responsible for cleaning up any asbestos found on site.

Mr Tabachnik said this presented a significant doubt as to the overall viability of the scheme.

He also cited the collapse of a previous, more ambitious plan to refurbish Billingham House as part of a larger ‘campus development’ in support of the council’s case.

He said: ‘We know that the scheme fell to pieces, and that is the basis on which the council really felt it had no choice but to explore other options to alleviate the impact upon amenity.

He added: ‘You can’t ignore the history of matters.

‘We had been supportive of allowing time for a full exploration of an alternative and a refurbishment for a very long time, but we were entitled to take the view that [after] the campus scheme fell to pieces, subject to some other scheme coming forward with reasonable certainty [of succeeding] that enough was enough.

‘Given the history of unfulfilled promises, it was perfectly rational that we did not want to get into a delay and delay scenario.’

The hearing continues this afternoon with further submissions from both sides.

Judge Charles George, QC, will then rule on whether to uphold Bizzy B’s challenge and overturn the council’s decision.

He is expected to reserve judgement today and announce his final decision on a later date.

ENDS