Who signs a declaration on a prescribed planning form

Signing planning application declaration boxes is not a formality. The prescribed forms carry a declaration that the information given is true to the best of the signatory's knowledge, and knowingly or recklessly giving false or misleading information in an ownership certificate is a criminal offence under section 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The agent who ticks certificate A because it is quicker than finding out who owns the access strip is committing that offence on the applicant's behalf.

The practical rule for an agent: sign the agent declaration, never the applicant's, and get written authority before you submit anything.

What the declarations on the forms actually say

The standard application forms, prescribed under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and published through the Planning Portal, carry several distinct signed elements. They do different jobs and people sign the wrong one routinely.

The ownership certificates. Certificate A confirms that the applicant is the sole owner of the whole application site and that no part is or was agricultural land. Certificate B confirms the applicant has given notice to every other owner, naming them. Certificate C is for where some owners are unknown despite reasonable enquiry, and Certificate D for where all are unknown. "Owner" for this purpose includes a freeholder and anyone with a leasehold interest of which seven years or more remains unexpired.

The agricultural holdings certificate. A separate declaration about whether any part of the site is, or was within the previous twenty-one days, agricultural land, and whether any agricultural tenants have been notified.

The applicant or agent declaration. A statement that the information in the form is correct to the best of the signatory's knowledge, with the signature, the name and the date.

The site visit declaration, confirming who can be contacted to arrange access.

Each of these is a separate statement. Signing the form once does not mean the certificates have been thought about.

Applicant and agent signatures distinguished

The forms provide separate boxes for the applicant and the agent, and the distinction has consequences.

Where an agent signs as agent, they are stating that the information is correct to the best of their knowledge, acting on the applicant's instructions. Where an agent signs in the applicant's box, they are purporting to make the applicant's own declaration, and if they do that without authority the application is defective.

What good practice looks like:

• The agent signs the agent declaration and gives their own name.
• The applicant is named in full as the applicant, with the correct legal entity.
• The ownership certificate is signed by, or on the express written instruction of, the person whose knowledge it reflects.
• Where the agent signs a certificate on the applicant's behalf, the authority to do so is in writing and on file.
• The date is the date of signature, not the date of submission.

Online submission complicates this, because a portal account holder clicking through a declaration is signing it. An agent submitting under their own account is the signatory, whatever the form says about the applicant.

Offences for false statements

Section 65(6) of the 1990 Act makes it an offence for a person to issue a certificate under section 65 which purports to comply with the requirements of that section and which contains a statement which they know to be false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly to issue a certificate which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular. Conviction is on summary conviction with a fine.

Two words carry the weight. "Recklessly" means the offence does not require deliberate dishonesty, so an agent who ticks certificate A without making enquiries is exposed. "Material particular" means a trivial error is not an offence, but the ownership of part of the site is never trivial.

There are consequences short of prosecution:

1. The permission may be challengeable, because defective notice to an owner can be a ground for judicial review.
2. The local planning authority can decline to validate, or can revisit validation once the error is discovered.
3. A section 73 or section 96A application later inherits the defect.
4. Professional consequences follow for a chartered agent, since RTPI and RICS members are subject to codes of professional conduct, and the competence expectations set out in our note on what CIfA registration means apply across the institutes.
5. An undisclosed owner who was never notified may have a claim against the agent rather than the authority.

Separately, section 70C and the enforcement provisions mean that a permission obtained on a false basis is a weak foundation to build on.

Where an agent needs written authority

Written authority is needed more often than agents assume. The situations that call for it:

• Signing any ownership certificate on the applicant's behalf.
• Serving notice on other owners under certificate B, because the notice has to be served by or on behalf of the applicant.
• Submitting on behalf of a company, where the person giving instructions must have authority to bind the company.
• Acting for joint owners, where one owner cannot bind the other without authority.
• Acting for a trust, an executor or a personal representative.
• Withdrawing an application or agreeing an extension of time, both of which are decisions for the client.

A short letter of authority that names the site, the application, the scope of the agent's authority and the date is enough. Keep it for the life of the permission and beyond, because the question tends to arise years later during a sale.

Where the applicant is not the owner, certificate B is the normal route and notice must be served on the owner before the application is submitted. The notice period is 21 days, and the certificate states the date notice was given.

Company applicants and authorised signatories

Naming the applicant correctly is where a surprising number of applications go wrong, and the error can be awkward to fix.

The applicant should be the full registered name of the legal entity, matching Companies House, including the suffix. A trading name is not the applicant. "Smith Developments" where the entity is "Smith Developments (Midlands) Limited" creates a permission in favour of something that does not exist, which is a problem on sale even though permission runs with the land.

The signatory must have authority. A director plainly does. A project manager or a site agent may not, and for a company the safe route is a board resolution or an email from a director confirming the instruction. For a partnership, check the partnership agreement. For a registered provider or a charity, check the governing document, because some require specific authorisation for property transactions.

Where the land is owned by one company in a group and the application is made by another, certificate B applies and notice has to be served on the owning company. Group structures catch people out because the ownership feels internal while the legal position is not.

Correcting a form after submission

Mistakes are fixable, and the fix is faster the earlier it is made.

Where the error is in a certificate, tell the case officer in writing, submit a corrected certificate, serve any notice that should have been served, and allow the 21-day notice period to run before the decision is issued. Most authorities will accept that and re-start the consultation period where necessary. Where the error is discovered after a decision has been issued, the position is harder, and legal advice is needed before anything is done, because an application to correct can draw attention to a defect that affects the permission's validity.

Where the applicant's name is wrong, the authority may be willing to correct a clerical error. A change of applicant is different and may need a fresh application, though in practice a permission runs with the land, so the commercial consequence is often smaller than it first appears.

Do not amend and resubmit silently. An authority that finds a quietly altered certificate treats it differently from one that was corrected openly.

Keeping the authority on file

Three documents belong in every project file, and the discipline costs nothing.

The letter of authority from the client, naming the site and the scope. The ownership evidence relied on for the certificate, which means the Land Registry title plan and register for the application site and any land needed for access, visibility splays or drainage. And copies of any notices served under certificate B, with the date and the method of service recorded.

Where a draft is prepared with AI assistance, the declaration is still a human act. PlanScope drafts the supporting documents; the forms, certificates and declarations are the applicant's and the agent's responsibility, and the professional directory is the route for arranging review of technical drafts by a qualified reviewer. The report index shows which supporting documents accompany the forms.

The access strip is the one to check every time. More defective certificates arise from a shared drive, a visibility splay over a neighbour's verge, or a drainage connection across third party land than from anything else.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. This is general guidance rather than legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a solicitor before relying on it.