Section 73 or section 96A to change a permission
Section 96A amends the permission you hold. Section 73 gives you a second one. The difference decides your fee, your consultation, your determination period and whether the section 106 still binds.
If the change you want alters what the permission describes, neither section 73 nor section 96A will carry it. That is the first question to settle, before anyone argues about materiality. Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 amends the existing permission for something non-material. Section 73 grants a fresh permission on different conditions, leaving the original intact. They produce different legal animals, and choosing the wrong one costs a determination period and sometimes a section 106 renegotiation.
The practical test most agents use is blunt. Can you describe the change in a sentence that nobody would object to, and does it leave every condition and the description of development readable as before? Then section 96A. Otherwise section 73, if the change lives inside a condition.
What each provision does to the permission
Section 96A lets the authority amend a planning permission where the amendment is non-material. The original permission continues, with the amendment recorded against it. There is no new permission, no new three year implementation clock, and no fresh section 106 problem.
Section 73 is an application to develop land without complying with a condition previously imposed. If the authority is minded to allow it, the outcome is a new planning permission, subject to the conditions it thinks fit. The original permission survives and can still be implemented. You end up holding two permissions for the same land, which is useful and occasionally confusing.
That distinction drives almost everything else in this comparison. A new permission attracts new conditions, a new decision notice, a new implementation clock and a new relationship with any planning obligation.
The materiality test and who applies it
There is no statutory definition of non-material. Section 96A requires the authority to have regard to the effect of the change together with any previous changes, which is the clause that stops a scheme being salami-sliced through five amendments that add up to something substantial.
Materiality is judged against the permission as granted and the context of the site. A 150 mm change in ridge height on a detached rural barn conversion may be non-material. The same change on a terrace where the roofline was the reason for approval is not. Authorities publish their own guidance on what they will accept, and it varies more than anyone would like.
Things that are usually refused as non-material: altering the description of development, adding or removing a unit, changing the red line boundary, and removing a condition that secured mitigation. Things that usually pass: minor fenestration changes, small internal reconfigurations, a substituted drawing number, correcting an obvious error in a plan reference.
| Section 96A | Section 73 | |
|---|---|---|
| Result | Amends the existing permission | Creates a new permission |
| Test | Non-material change | Planning merits of the condition |
| Publicity | Not required by statute | Full application publicity |
| Determination | 28 days | 8 weeks for minor development |
| Description of development | Cannot be changed | Cannot be contradicted |
| Time limit condition | Cannot be extended | Cannot be extended |
Conditions that section 73 cannot reach
Section 73(5) prevents the authority extending the time limit for implementation. If the permission has expired you have no application to make, so the date on the decision notice matters more than most other facts about the scheme.
The bigger trap is the relationship between condition and description. Where a condition is varied in a way that conflicts with the operative description of the development, the application falls outside the section. The Court of Appeal took that view in Finney v Welsh Ministers, and it has shaped practice since: if the description says "erection of 12 dwellings" you cannot use section 73 on a plans condition to deliver 14. Appeal and court decisions are indicative of the approach taken rather than a template for your own scheme, but this one is quoted in refusal letters often enough to treat as settled practice.
Section 73B of the 1990 Act, inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, was drafted to create a wider route for varying a permission where the result is not substantially different from the existing one. As at September 2026, whether it is in force should be checked on legislation.gov.uk before an application is prepared on that basis, because the route only helps once it is in force and supported by the fee regulations.
Fees, consultation and how long each takes
A section 96A application carries a flat fee set by the national fee regulations, with a lower figure for householder development. Planning fees are indexed annually, so check the current schedule rather than a figure quoted in an old note. The authority has 28 days from receipt to determine it, and there is no statutory requirement to consult, although some authorities notify neighbours anyway where the change is visible.
Section 73 is a planning application in the ordinary sense. It carries the full application fee, triggers the publicity and consultation requirements in the Development Management Procedure Order 2015, and runs to the standard determination period, which is eight weeks for minor development. Statutory consultees are reconsulted where the varied condition touches their interest, and a highway authority or lead local flood authority will sometimes use the opportunity to ask for more than the original permission secured.
That last point is worth planning for. A section 73 reopens the conditions as a whole, and the new permission will carry a full schedule, rather than only the one you asked about. Check the draft schedule before the decision issues.
What happens to the section 106
An existing planning obligation binds the land in relation to the permission it was entered into for. Because section 73 produces a new permission, the original agreement frequently does not attach to it unless the deed was drafted to bind any subsequent permission. Older agreements often were not.
The usual fix is a deed of variation or a supplemental agreement executed before the section 73 decision issues. Leave it to the end and the decision sits undated while the authority's legal team works through the title. Allow six to eight weeks for that on anything with multiple owners or a mortgagee.
Community Infrastructure Levy liability also needs checking, because a new permission can bring a fresh chargeable amount into play with the levy regulations providing for the treatment of section 73 permissions. Do the calculation before you apply, not after.
A section 96A amendment leaves both the obligation and the levy position undisturbed, which is one of the strongest arguments for using it where the change is minor in substance. Our note on section 73 and the new permission it creates goes through the consequences in more detail, and the companion piece on varying a planning condition under section 73 covers the drafting of the application itself.
Choosing between them, and when neither works
Work through it in this order. Does the change alter the description of development? If yes, you need a fresh full application. Does it sit entirely within a condition, and is it more than minor? Section 73. Is it small, invisible in policy terms, and consistent with everything the permission says? Section 96A.
Where neither fits, the honest answer is a new application, and it usually costs less to accept that early. Two failed amendment applications and a refused section 73 cost more in time than one properly prepared full application with a supporting statement that explains why the scheme moved.
Whichever route you take, the supporting material carries the argument. A short Planning Statement that sets out the original permission, the change sought, the effect of that change and why it remains acceptable against adopted policy does more than a covering letter. PlanScope can draft that statement from the scheme details, flagging anything it cannot verify rather than filling the gap, and the draft should then be checked against the original decision notice by whoever signs the application.
This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. Browse the PlanScope report types if you want to see what a variation submission normally needs alongside the forms.
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 section 73 be used to extend the time limit for implementation?
No. Section 73(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 expressly prevents the authority using the section to extend the period within which development must begin. If the permission has already expired there is nothing to vary, so the implementation deadline on the decision notice needs checking before any variation strategy is settled.
Does a section 73 permission carry the original section 106 agreement?
Not automatically. The obligation binds the land in relation to the permission it was completed for, and older agreements often say nothing about subsequent permissions. A deed of variation or a supplemental agreement is usually needed, executed before the section 73 decision issues. Allow several weeks for that where there are multiple owners or a lender involved.
What counts as a non-material amendment?
There is no statutory definition. The authority must have regard to the effect of the change together with any previous changes to the same permission. Minor fenestration alterations, substituted drawing numbers and small internal changes usually pass. Altering the description of development, changing the red line boundary or removing a mitigation condition usually does not.
How long does each application take to determine?
A section 96A application has a 28 day determination period from receipt. A section 73 application is an ordinary planning application, so it runs to the standard period, which is eight weeks for minor development, and it triggers the publicity and consultation requirements in the Development Management Procedure Order 2015.
Can a section 73 application make the conditions worse?
It can. The new permission carries a full schedule of conditions rather than only the one you asked about, and consultees can revisit their advice where the varied condition touches their interest. Ask for the draft schedule before the decision issues so that any unexpected condition requiring discharge before works begin can be discussed rather than discovered later.
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.