StephenC wrote:Spot on shadow
An architect may only act as the agent of the developer.
An architect may not be a contractor (at least that used to be the case).
Yet it is clear that an architect may act as a director or developer or can be an owner.
In this regard, having ownership of the land through a company or in his own name the architect could apply for permission.
My understanding is that if the company's ownership was based on a contract to purchase not yet executed, then the owner must be named
However the OP's question appears to wonder whether the architect could entirely represent a secret owner, who is someone else - this they cannot do.
Shadows point above is relevant.
One concern is that the planning process should be as open and transparent as reasonable and in that regard that the name of the owner should be made known.
Another concern is that the applicant should have sufficient legal interest in the site to make the application, and that this cannot occur without the knowledge and consent of the owner.