Ocean One Hundred Limited, R (on the application of) v New Forest Park National Authority

The statutory power to revoke a certificate of lawfulness is concerned with materially false statements or withheld information, not with revisiting the planning merits or correcting a change of mind. The statutory criteria are assessed objectively, and the applicant bears no burden of proving a negative in judicial review proceedings. Materiality may arise where information could have led to refusal, different terms, a different factual finding, a different inference or a further line of inquiry.

Knowledge held by an enforcement team is not automatically attributed to officers determining the certificate application. Where the factual position is uncertain and dynamic, the authority may rely on reasonable inferences. An officer’s report must be fair and balanced and must not significantly mislead the decision-makers, but it need not undertake an exhaustive judicial analysis.

Ocean challenged the New Forest Park National Authority’s decision, notified on 7 November 2023, to revoke a 2008 certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development for a site at North Ripley. The certificate covered use of the whole site as a caravan site and part of it for caravan storage.

The Authority relied on alleged false statements and withheld information concerning the extent of the caravan-site use and other activities on the land. Ocean argued that relevant historic documents had been lost, that information had been withheld during the revocation process, that the officer’s report was unfair and misleading, and that the decision was biased, irrational and procedurally unlawful.

1. Outcome. The judicial review claim was dismissed on Grounds 1–3, 5 and 7. Permission was refused on Grounds 8 and 9.
2. Under section 193(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a certificate may be revoked where a material false statement or document was used, or material information was withheld. The criteria are objective. Deliberate concealment is unnecessary. The power cannot be used merely to revisit the merits of the original certificate. The authority must nevertheless be satisfied that the statutory criteria are met, and the court reviews that conclusion for public-law error.
3. The applicant is not required to prove a negative. Missing evidence may create evidential difficulties, but the authority may proceed on reasonable inferences where the available material provides a rational basis. The distinction between irresistible inference, reasonable inference and speculation is important.
4. The principles in R (Ocado Retail Ltd) v Islington London Borough Council remained applicable. Information known to the enforcement division was not automatically attributed to the officers dealing with the certificate application. However, if those officers themselves knew that information supplied was false or material information had been withheld, the alleged non-disclosure would not be material, or revocation could be irrational. On the facts, the uncertainty surrounding the 2007 site visit did not require that conclusion.
5. The officer’s report accurately stated the law and was not so superficial as to be unfair, imbalanced or significantly misleading. Some grounds relied on for revocation, including general site untidiness, grazing and the unspecified number of caravans, were weak or should not have been included. The central allegation that the touring caravan use extended across the whole site was nevertheless supported by evidence and was fairly presented to members.
6. The fair-minded and informed observer would have had concerns about the officer’s communications with an objector, but would not have concluded that there was a real possibility of bias. The officer was not the ultimate decision-maker, had no personal interest or animus, and the report did not exhibit the defects identified in R v Teeside Development Corporation, ex parte William Morrison Supermarkets plc.