Outline for a section 73 supporting statement

A section 73 application statement has one job: to show the authority that the change you want sits inside a condition, and that nothing outside the matters the change affects needs to be reopened. Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lets an authority grant permission without compliance with conditions previously imposed, and section 73(2) tells it to consider only the question of the conditions. A statement that drifts into a general restatement of the scheme invites exactly the wide-ranging reassessment you are trying to avoid.

The outline below is the order that keeps the officer inside that boundary.

What section 73 can and cannot change

Open with the limits, because half of all refused section 73 applications were outside the power from the start.

Section 73 can remove a condition, vary the wording of a condition, or substitute a condition that approves different details. It cannot change the description of development. The Court of Appeal settled that in Finney v Welsh Ministers in 2019, so a variation that would conflict with the words of the permission, such as increasing the height of a turbine where the description fixes it, cannot be achieved this way.

It also cannot extend the time limit for implementation. And it cannot be used at all once the permission has expired, because there is no longer a permission to vary.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created an additional power to vary permissions where the effect would not be substantially different from the existing permission. Check whether that power is in force, and how your authority is applying it, at the date you submit, because the position has moved and a statement that cites a provision not yet in force undermines its own credibility.

Where the change is trivial, section 96A costs less and does not create a new permission. Say in the statement why you chose section 73 over section 96A, in one sentence.

Describing the variation precisely

The second section quotes the condition as imposed and sets out the proposed replacement wording in full. Not a description of the change. The actual text, before and after.

Officers draft the replacement condition from your wording, so wording it yourself is the single most useful thing the statement does. Where the variation approves a revised drawing, name the drawing numbers and revisions in both the existing and proposed wording, because an approved plans condition that lists superseded drawings is a problem that surfaces years later at discharge stage.

Give the original permission reference, its decision date, and the condition number. Where the permission has already been varied once, give the chain, since the operative permission is the most recent one and not the original.

The approved and proposed schedule

A table does the work here better than prose, and it is the part officers read first.

Add a column for the reason only where the change needs one. The schedule is a factual comparison, and argument belongs in the next section.

Where the variation affects a drawing that other conditions also refer to, list those conditions too and say whether they need consequential amendment. Our note on the section 73 application documents checklist sets out the full submission bundle that accompanies this statement.

Policy and site changes since the original permission

The authority determines the application in the current policy context, so the statement has to address what has changed since the permission was granted.

Deal with it in three short paragraphs. The development plan position now, including any plan adopted or policy superseded since the original decision. The national policy position, citing the current edition of the National Planning Policy Framework by name and date. Any change in the site's constraints, for example a new conservation area, a revised flood map, or a biodiversity gain requirement that applied to the original permission or does not.

Be straight about unfavourable changes. An officer who finds a policy change you did not mention will reassess more widely than one who sees it dealt with in two sentences. Where a new requirement does apply to the varied permission, say what you are doing about it.

Reassessing only the matters the change affects

This is the analytical core of the statement, and it should be organised by effect rather than by policy.

Identify each planning matter the variation touches, and deal with it in a short headed paragraph: amenity, highway safety, design, drainage, trees, ecology, heritage. For each, state the position under the approved scheme, the position under the variation, and whether the difference is material.

Then state explicitly which matters are unaffected and why. That list is the protection against a wider reassessment, and it needs to be reasoned rather than asserted. "The variation does not alter the footprint, the ridge height or the window positions, so the daylight and overlooking conclusions in the original assessment are unchanged" is a reasoned statement. "There is no amenity impact" is not.

Where a matter is affected to a degree that needs updated technical evidence, provide it. A varied condition that increases a building's depth by a metre needs the daylight work rerun, and submitting the old report invites a holding objection that costs more time than the update would have.

Conditions carried forward, and the new permission that results

Section 73 produces a new, standalone planning permission. The original permission survives and remains capable of implementation, which has consequences worth setting out in the statement so the authority knows you understand them.

List every condition on the original permission and state, for each, whether it should be carried forward unchanged, carried forward with consequential amendment, or discharged already. Where conditions have been discharged, give the discharge application references and dates, so the new permission does not reimpose a requirement you have already satisfied.

Pay attention to the commencement condition. The new permission cannot extend the original time limit, so the statement should confirm the implementation position and, where development has lawfully begun, say so with the evidence.

The levy, the agreement and the other consequences

Three consequences catch people, and dealing with them in the statement shortens the determination.

A section 73 permission requires the community infrastructure levy liability to be recalculated, and the charging authority will issue a revised liability notice. Where the variation increases floorspace this costs money. Where it reduces it, the recalculation is worth having.

A section 106 agreement attached to the original permission may not bind the new permission unless it was drafted to cover subsequent permissions. Check the deed. Where it does not, a deed of variation or a supplemental agreement is needed, and the authority's legal team will want it engrossed before the decision issues. Start that early, because it is routinely the thing that holds a decision up for a month.

The application attracts a fee under the fees regulations, and publicity and consultation run as they would for a new application.

When a fresh application is the better route

Say so in the statement where it is true, or advise the client before submitting.

A full application is the better route where the change conflicts with the description of development, where the permission has expired, where the cumulative effect of several variations makes the approved scheme hard to identify, or where the change is large enough that the authority will reassess the whole proposal anyway. The practical test is whether you can describe the change by reference to a single condition without straining the language.

Where you are going the fresh application route instead, the supporting case is built as a full Planning Statement with an updated Design and Access Statement covering the design evolution, rather than as a variation narrative.

Draft the replacement condition wording first. Everything else in the statement follows from it.

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