Section 73 and section 96A fees compared

A section 96A application amends an existing permission for a non-material change and is determined in 28 days with no statutory publicity. A section 73 application grants a new permission that varies or removes a condition, goes through the ordinary consultation process, and takes eight weeks. The fees for the two routes sit at similar flat levels, with a lower band for applications relating to an existing dwellinghouse, so the fee is rarely what decides between them.

What decides it is the legal effect. A section 73 grant creates a new permission sitting alongside the original, and that has consequences for the community infrastructure levy and for every condition you thought was settled.

What each application does

Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to make a change to an existing permission where it is satisfied the change is not material. There is no statutory definition of non-material. It is a judgement made in the context of the particular permission, so the same 200 millimetre shift is non-material on an industrial shed and material on a listed building.

Section 73 allows an application for permission to develop land without complying with a condition previously imposed. The authority may only consider the question of the conditions. It cannot revisit the principle of the development, and it cannot refuse on grounds unrelated to the conditions in question.

A section 73 grant is a fresh planning permission. The original permission survives, and the developer ends up holding two, which is why the decision notice on a section 73 usually restates every condition rather than only the varied one.

The fee for each route

Both routes carry flat fees set in the fee regulations rather than fees calculated from floorspace or unit numbers, and both have a lower band for applications relating to an existing dwellinghouse.

Planning fees in England were uplifted in December 2023 and are subject to annual indexation, so take the current figures from the fee regulations or the national fee calculator rather than from a previous application. The difference between the two routes in pure fee terms is modest in any event.

The real cost is elsewhere. A section 73 usually needs updated drawings, a covering statement, and often re-consultation responses to address, and on a scheme of any size that professional time exceeds the application fee several times over. Budgeting the documents alongside the fee is covered in more detail for householder projects from design to decision.

Which changes qualify for which route

Use section 96A for changes that do not alter the character or effect of the permitted development. Small dimensional adjustments, minor material substitutions that read the same, corrections to drawing numbers and reference errors, and adjustments to internal layout where it does not affect the external appearance.

Use section 73 where the change works through a condition, most commonly the approved plans condition. Changing the elevational treatment, relocating a building within the site, altering the mix, amending a landscaping scheme after approval and extending operating hours all go this way.

Two limits catch people out. Section 73 cannot be used to extend the time limit for implementation. And it cannot be used to make a change that conflicts with the operative part of the permission, which the Court of Appeal confirmed in Finney v Welsh Ministers in 2019, so the description of development cannot be altered through a condition variation.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 inserted a new section 73B allowing permission to be granted for development not substantially different from that already permitted. Check whether it has been brought into force and what fee applies before planning around it.

Effect on the original permission and on the levy

This is the point that costs money. Because a section 73 grant is a new permission, the community infrastructure levy is recalculated on it, and the regulations provide a mechanism for crediting the earlier chargeable amount. Where the charging schedule or the indexation figure has moved since the original permission, the recalculation can produce a higher bill even though the floorspace has not changed.

Check the position before applying rather than after the liability notice arrives. The mechanics of working the charge out from the schedule are set out in calculating your levy liability.

A section 96A amendment does not create a new permission and does not trigger a recalculation, which is one of the strongest practical arguments for using it where it is properly available.

An illustrative example shows how the levy point bites. A permission for eight houses is granted with a levy liability calculated on the charging schedule and index in force at the time. Two years later the developer applies under section 73 to vary the approved plans condition, changing the roof form and moving two plots. Floorspace is unchanged. The new permission is charged on the current index, the earlier chargeable amount is credited under the regulations, and the difference is payable. The design change cost nothing in construction terms and a five figure sum in levy. This example is illustrative.

Consultation, publicity and programme

Section 96A applications are not subject to the statutory publicity requirements that apply to planning applications, although an authority may consult where it considers it appropriate. Section 73 applications are publicised and consulted in the ordinary way, which means neighbours and statutory consultees get another opportunity to comment on a scheme they may already have objected to.

That difference matters on contentious sites. A section 73 to move a building two metres can reopen an argument about a different issue entirely, because objectors respond to the scheme rather than to the condition.

On programme, allow the statutory period plus validation time for both, and allow longer for a section 73 where a statutory consultee is involved. Neither route has a guaranteed timescale, and both are subject to the authority's validation requirements.

There is a further programme trap with section 73. Because the grant is a new permission, it carries its own implementation time limit running from the date of that grant, and a developer relying on the original permission's commencement needs to be clear about which permission is being built out. Where works have already begun under the original, take advice on whether the section 73 permission can lawfully be implemented at all, because a permission for a scheme that has already been partly built is not always capable of being carried out.

Choosing the cheaper route lawfully

The temptation is to characterise a material change as non-material, or to break one material change into several small amendments. Both are risky.

If an authority accepts a section 96A that it should not have, the amendment is vulnerable to challenge, and a purchaser's solicitor who spots a substantial change made under section 96A will raise it. Building on a permission that has been amended unlawfully is a worse position than paying for a section 73.

Ask the case officer before submitting. Most authorities will say informally whether a change looks non-material, and a short email exchange saves a refused application. Where the answer is that it is borderline, submit the section 73, because certainty on title is worth more than the difference in fee. Assemble the supporting documents for whichever route you choose so the authority is not left inferring what has changed from a drawing comparison.

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.