R (Bishop) v Westminster Council & Ors [2017] EWHC 3102 (Admin)
The point in plain English: Ownership certificates on planning applications are not a box-ticking formality. A materially false certificate which deprives the true owner of the statutory notice Parliament intended can make the resulting planning permission unlawful.
What happened
The planning application concerned redevelopment next to the claimant’s property and included works affecting airspace in which the claimant had an ownership interest. The application was accompanied by Certificate A, asserting that the applicant was the sole owner.
The true ownership position was not correctly stated and the claimant did not receive the ownership notice that should have followed from a different certificate.
What the High Court decided
Charles George QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that the ownership provisions in the development management procedure and sections 65 and 327A of the 1990 Act were mandatory. On the facts, the certificate was materially false and the failure had deprived the owner of statutory notice.
The court retained a discretion over remedy, but there was no proper basis to refuse relief in this case. The planning permission was quashed.
Why Bishop matters
The important lesson is practical: establish who owns the application land, including relevant airspace and other interests, before signing the certificate. A mistake which makes no practical difference may be treated differently from a material falsehood that removes another owner’s statutory opportunity to respond.
Our guide to ownership certificates on planning applications explains Certificates A, B, C and D and the notice requirements.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.