Duplicate and overlapping applications on the same site
Several extant permissions can sit on the same land at once. The hard part is proving which one was implemented, and closing off the conditions on the others.
Nothing in planning law stops an owner holding several extant permissions over the same land at once. Duplicate planning applications are lawful, councils register them, and the permissions that result sit side by side until one of them is implemented. The difficulty arrives afterwards, when somebody has to say which permission the building on site was actually built under, and the file does not make it obvious.
For a consultant, the risk is rarely the application. It is the moment two years later when a funder's solicitor asks which consent is being relied on and why the others are not a problem.
Why applicants run more than one application
Four reasons account for most of it. A developer wants a fallback while a more ambitious scheme is tested. A landowner wants an outline consent kept alive while a detailed scheme goes through. A scheme is submitted in two forms, one policy compliant and one preferred, to see which the officer supports. Or the first application is running out of time and a second is submitted to reset the clock.
There is also the defensive case. Where a local plan review threatens to allocate the site differently, or an Article 4 direction is being consulted on, an extant permission is a material consideration in itself and worth having.
None of that is improper. What causes trouble is submitting the second application without deciding, in advance, what happens to the first.
Twin tracking and how councils respond
Twin tracking, meaning two applications for the same or nearly the same development submitted at once, has a poor reputation with authorities. The usual objection is workload: two officer reports, two consultation exercises and two sets of neighbour letters for one development.
Some councils will ask you to withdraw one. A few decline to register a second identical application, though there is no clear statutory basis for refusing a valid application accompanied by the correct fee. In practice the negotiation is easier if you explain the purpose at the outset, because an officer who understands that the second application exists to preserve an appeal route usually cooperates.
Where the reason for the second application is delay rather than design, consider whether the better route is an appeal against non determination, which is set out in our note on appealing non determination instead of waiting. Where the purpose really is to test two designs, our note on twin tracking covers when it earns its cost.
Fees on duplicate applications
Each application attracts its own fee. There is no discount for similarity, and the fee is calculated on each application as submitted.
The concession for a further application of the same character on the same site has been narrowed by amendments to the 2012 Fees Regulations, so do not assume a second bite comes free. Read the current text and confirm the position with the validation team in writing before you rely on it in a budget.
On a major application the arithmetic is worth doing properly. Two full fees, two sets of consultant time responding to two rounds of consultee comments, and two committee reports can cost more than the certainty is worth.
Which permission is implemented, and how you evidence it
A permission is implemented when a material operation authorised by it is begun, as defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Digging a trench for a foundation, laying out an access, or a material change of use all count.
Two conditions sit on top of that. The operation has to be carried out under the permission relied on, in accordance with the approved plans, and any pre commencement condition has to have been discharged first. Starting work in breach of a pre commencement condition can mean the development is not lawfully begun at all, which is the trap that catches permissions on the edge of expiry.
Evidence this at the time, not later. Take dated photographs of the works from fixed viewpoints, keep the contractor's records and invoices, keep the discharge of conditions decision notices, and record the date and the permission reference in a file note. Where certainty matters, a Lawful Development Certificate under section 191 confirming that development has lawfully begun is available and worth the fee on a valuable site.
The leading authority on inconsistent permissions is Pilkington, and the principle is straightforward. Where two permissions are mutually inconsistent, and works carried out under one make it physically impossible to build out the other in accordance with its terms, the second ceases to be capable of implementation. It is not revoked. It simply cannot be used.
Conditions that conflict between permissions
Conflict between conditions on parallel permissions is common and rarely noticed until enforcement. Permission A requires a landscape scheme approved before occupation. Permission B, for the same buildings, requires a different landscape scheme and a different access arrangement.
The developer builds under B, discharges B's conditions, and then receives a breach of condition notice under A because nobody closed A off. The answer is not complicated, but it has to be done deliberately: decide which permission is being implemented, discharge that permission's conditions, and record in writing to the council which consent the development is being carried out under.
Where conditions on the implemented permission are unworkable, a section 73 application to vary them is the route, and its limits are narrower than people assume. Keep the description of development unchanged, because varying it is what takes an application outside section 73.
Section 73 permissions alongside the original
A section 73 permission is a new planning permission in its own right. It does not amend the original, and it does not extinguish it. Both remain on the register and both are capable of implementation, subject to the Pilkington point above.
That produces a chain: an original permission, a first section 73 varying the plans, a second section 73 varying a different condition, each with its own reference number, its own conditions and its own set of approved drawings. After three or four of these, the only reliable way to know what is permitted is to read the most recent consent in full, including the conditions it carried over.
Two practical habits help. First, when applying under section 73, ask the authority to consolidate the conditions into the new decision notice rather than cross referring to the original. Second, keep a single schedule listing every permission on the site with its date, description, drawing numbers and condition status.
That schedule is the backbone of the compliance file described in our note on building a compliance file after permission is granted.
Keeping the history legible for a purchaser
Assume a solicitor will read the planning history cold, two years after you stop working on the site, with no context. Write the file for that reader.
A usable record contains a schedule of every application on the site with reference, date, description and outcome, a statement of which permission is being implemented and the evidence for that, copies of every decision notice with the approved drawing list, discharge of conditions notices with the evidence submitted, and a note explaining why the other permissions exist and what happened to them.
The point of the note is to pre empt the obvious question. A parallel permission that was never implemented and is now time expired is harmless, but only if the file says so. Left unexplained, it becomes a requisition, then a title indemnity policy, then a delay to completion.
Set the position out clearly in the Planning Statement for any later application on the same land as well. Case officers assess a proposal against the existing lawful position, and telling them which permission that is saves a round of correspondence.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. If a parallel scheme needs its own supporting documents, enter your postcode on PlanScope to see what the council is likely to ask for. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
Can I hold two planning permissions for the same site?
Yes. Nothing prevents an owner holding several extant permissions over the same land, and councils register duplicate applications. Each permission stands on its own with its own conditions and approved drawings. The practical work is deciding which one you are implementing and recording that decision in writing before work starts.
What is the Pilkington principle?
Where two permissions are mutually inconsistent and works carried out under one make it physically impossible to build the other in accordance with its terms, the second ceases to be capable of implementation. It is not revoked, it simply cannot be used. The test is whether the remaining permission could still be carried out as approved.
How do I prove which permission was implemented?
Record it at the time. Dated photographs from fixed viewpoints, contractor records and invoices, the discharge of conditions notices, and a file note naming the permission reference and the date of the material operation. Where certainty matters, a Lawful Development Certificate under section 191 confirming that development has lawfully begun is available.
Does a section 73 permission replace the original?
No. A section 73 consent is a new permission in its own right. The original remains on the register and remains capable of implementation, subject to the Pilkington point. After several variations the only reliable way to know what is permitted is to read the most recent decision notice in full, including the conditions carried over.
Do I pay a full fee on a duplicate application?
Yes. Each application is charged on its own, with no discount for similarity. The concession for a further application of the same character on the same site has been narrowed by amendments to the 2012 Fees Regulations, so confirm the current position with the validation team in writing rather than budgeting for a free second attempt.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.