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

A certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development may be revoked only where a materially false statement or document was used, or material information was withheld, on the application. The power cannot correct an authority’s mistake or allow it to revisit the merits. The authority must first identify the true scope of the application, and cannot unilaterally enlarge it. Apparent bias must be assessed in the statutory context. In revocation cases, the objective statutory tests precede any discretionary consideration of planning merits. An officer’s report must be fair and balanced, identify the main issues and enable the decision-making body to reach an independent view. An appearance of bias may taint the decision even where the officer was not the ultimate decision-maker.

Jonathan Cox applied for a certificate under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning land near North Ripley. The New Forest National Park Authority granted a certificate in 2008 covering caravan storage on part of the land and use of the remainder as a caravan site. After the land was acquired for redevelopment, the Authority revoked the certificate under section 193(7), alleging materially false statements and withheld information.

Ocean One Hundred Limited sought judicial review. Jay J rejected the grounds of challenge, although he found that the responsible officer would have appeared biased if he had been the decision-maker. The appeal concerned whether that appearance of bias affected the officer’s report and the Board’s decision, and whether the process was otherwise unfair.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed on ground 5. Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 were rejected.
2. Section 193(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 permits revocation only on the statutory grounds of a materially false statement or document, or withheld material information, made or withheld on the application. It cannot be used to correct a mistake in fact or law, revisit the merits, or change the authority’s mind. The authority must determine what the application sought, including the scope of the signed form. Sections 191(4) and 193(4) do not permit the authority unilaterally to enlarge the application land or uses.
3. The apparent-bias test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias: Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67. The test must reflect the statutory context. Revocation of a certificate involves objective statutory tests and no planning-policy component at that stage. Planning merits may be considered only after the power to revoke has been engaged. The democratic planning context therefore did not reduce the need for impartiality.
4. Although the officer was not the ultimate decision-maker, the Board relied on his recommendation and reasoning. The report had to be fair and balanced, identify the main issues, present competing material objectively and enable the members to decide independently. The report failed to address the competing interpretations of the application, the limited certified caravan-club use, the officer’s site visit, the information held by enforcement officers and the uncertainty caused by missing records. It instead asserted, without evidence, that relevant information had not been shared. The Board’s decision was therefore tainted by apparent bias and procedural unfairness.
5. The loss of documents did not itself prevent the Authority from deciding whether revocation was available. It could assess surviving evidence and draw reasonable inferences. However, that exercise had to address the scope of the application and the other main issues. Complaints of procedural unfairness require substantial prejudice, but the complaints under ground 4 contributed to the evidence of apparent bias.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Allowed the appeal on ground 5 and rejected grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court. Jay J rejected the grounds challenging the Authority’s revocation decision in [2025] EWHC 953 (Admin).