Section 96A non-material amendments in practice
A 28 day determination, no publicity and the original permission left intact. The limits are that the change must be non-material and there is no right of appeal.
Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lets a local planning authority make a non-material change to an existing planning permission, and it is the fastest route to getting amended drawings approved: a 28 day determination period, a modest fee, no publicity requirement and no new permission created. The original consent stays in place with its original time limit, amended. What section 96A does not give you is a right of appeal if the authority says no, and it will not carry a change the officer considers material.
So the judgement to make before applying is whether the change is small enough, and that judgement is the authority's rather than yours.
What non-material means in practice
The Act does not define it. The test applied is whether the change is non-material when set against the permission as a whole, which means the same change can be non-material on a 200 unit scheme and material on a single dwelling.
What officers weigh is the effect of the change: whether it alters the appearance in a way a neighbour would notice, whether it affects anyone's amenity, whether it touches a matter that was contentious when the application was determined, and whether it affects something a consultee or a condition addressed.
That last point is the one worth internalising. A change to a window position on a flank elevation is usually nothing. The same change where the original permission was granted subject to an obscure glazing condition after an overlooking objection is not, because the change goes to the reason the condition exists.
Guidance in Planning Practice Guidance on flexible options for planning permissions sets out the framework. There is no national list of what qualifies, and authorities publish their own informal views, which is worth checking before applying.
Changes that are commonly accepted
The amendments that go through without difficulty share a character: they are small, internal, technical or invisible from outside.
- Minor repositioning of internal walls, stairs or door openings where no external change results.
- Small changes to window or door sizes on elevations that are not prominent, where the proportions are broadly maintained.
- Correction of a drawing error, including a dimension that does not match the written description or a plan that was superseded before submission.
- Substitution of a drawing with an updated revision that contains no substantive change.
- Minor changes to external materials where the original permission did not turn on materials.
- Small adjustments to levels, plant positions or rainwater goods.
- Alteration to the wording of a condition where the alteration is itself non-material, which the section expressly allows.
Keep the application narrow. A schedule listing four discrete small changes is easier to approve than a set of revised drawings with the changes unmarked and the officer left to find them.
Changes that are refused as material
The refusals cluster around a few types.
Anything that increases floorspace or the footprint, beyond the trivial. Any increase in height or a change in the number of storeys. New windows or balconies creating overlooking where none existed. Changes to the access arrangement or to parking numbers. Changes in the unit mix on a residential scheme. And anything that conflicts with the description of development on the decision notice.
That last one is a hard limit rather than a judgement. The description defines what was permitted, and neither section 96A nor section 73 can be used to change it: the Court of Appeal in Finney v Welsh Ministers confirmed that a condition cannot be varied under section 73 in a way that conflicts with the operative part of the permission. Where the description is the problem, the position is different and amending the description of development sets out the options.
Two practical consequences. A change that looks modest in isolation may still be refused because the description is specific, for example where it states a number of dwellings or a floor area. And an officer who thinks a change is material will usually say so informally if asked, which saves a refusal on the file.
The 28 day determination period
Section 96A applications are determined within 28 days, which is the shortest period in the development management system and the main reason the route is used.
Three things follow from the short period. There is no time for consultation, and authorities are not required to publicise these applications, though some notify neighbours where a change is visible. There is no realistic opportunity to negotiate, so the application has to be right when it goes in. And the fee is set and modest, indexed like other planning fees, so check the current schedule rather than reusing a figure, as how the fee schedule is applied and indexed explains.
What the authority issues is a notice of the non-material change, not a new planning permission. Keep it with the original decision notice, because the two documents have to be read together for the rest of the development's life.
Effect on the original permission and conditions
This is the feature that makes section 96A useful and the feature most often misunderstood. The original permission continues in force, amended. Its time limit for implementation is unchanged, its conditions remain except as amended, and any section 106 agreement attached to it is unaffected.
Compare that with section 73, which produces a new permission sitting alongside the original one. Two permissions then exist, the developer chooses which to implement, and the obligations and conditions have to be checked against whichever is used.
For an architect managing a live site, the practical advantage of section 96A is continuity. The approved drawing list is amended, so the drawings on site match the permission, and discharge of conditions work already done remains valid. Where conditions requiring approval before work starts are in play, that continuity matters, and what must be submitted before work starts on site sets out the sequence.
Multiple amendments and cumulative change
Authorities assess a proposed change against the permission as originally granted, not against the most recently amended version. That is the rule that defeats salami tactics.
Three small amendments, each non-material on its own, can amount to a material change when read together, and an officer looking at the fourth application will consider the whole picture. Where a scheme has already had amendments, include a short chronology in the application: what was permitted, what has been amended since, and what is now proposed.
The honest position is that there is no bright line here and practice varies between authorities. A development that has drifted substantially through successive amendments is better regularised through a section 73 application or a fresh application than through another section 96A, both because it is more likely to succeed and because it produces a single clean permission to build from.
An illustrative example
An architect has permission for a detached dwelling. During technical design the structural engineer increases the floor zone, raising the finished floor level by 75mm and the ridge by the same amount, and a ground floor window is widened by 200mm on a rear elevation facing the applicant's own garden. A section 96A application is made with a schedule of the two changes, marked-up elevations showing the before and after, and a note that neither affects the eaves height limit or any neighbouring window. The authority issues a notice of non-material change within 28 days. This example is illustrative and not a prediction of any decision.
Choosing between 96A and section 73
The choice is usually clear once three questions are answered.
- Does the change conflict with the description of development? If so, neither route works and a fresh application is needed.
- Is the change material when set against the permission as a whole? If it plainly is, go to section 73, or to a full application where conditions are not the mechanism.
- Do you need a right of appeal? There is none against refusal of a section 96A application, whereas a section 73 refusal can be appealed.
| Section 96A | Section 73 | |
|---|---|---|
| What it produces | Amendment to the existing permission | A new permission alongside the original |
| Scope | Non-material changes only | Variation or removal of conditions |
| Determination period | 28 days | 8 weeks for most applications |
| Right of appeal against refusal | None | Yes |
| Publicity | Not required | Usually required |
Where the change is borderline, the practical move is a short email to the case officer with a marked-up drawing, asking whether they would entertain a section 96A application. Officers answer that question, and the answer costs nothing. A Planning Statement is rarely needed for a section 96A application: a clear schedule of changes and marked-up drawings do more. For anything larger, the report types index is the better starting point.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. What counts as non-material is a judgement for the local planning authority, so check the position with your authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as a non-material change?
The Act does not define it, and the judgement is the local planning authority's, assessed against the permission as a whole. The same change can be non-material on a large scheme and material on a single dwelling. Officers weigh visibility, effect on amenity, and whether the change touches a contentious issue or a condition.
Can I appeal a refused section 96A application?
No. There is no right of appeal against refusal of a section 96A application, which is one reason to ask the case officer informally before applying. A section 73 refusal can be appealed, so where the change is borderline and the stakes are high, the longer route carries a safeguard the short one lacks.
Does section 96A create a new planning permission?
No. The original permission continues in force, amended, with its time limit, conditions and any section 106 agreement unaffected. The authority issues a notice of non-material change, which has to be kept with the original decision notice and read alongside it for the rest of the development's life.
Can section 96A change the description of development?
No. The description defines what was permitted and neither section 96A nor section 73 can be used to conflict with it. The Court of Appeal in Finney v Welsh Ministers confirmed that a condition cannot be varied under section 73 in a way that conflicts with the operative part of the permission.
Are successive amendments assessed cumulatively?
Yes. Authorities assess a proposed change against the permission as originally granted rather than the most recently amended version, so three individually small changes can amount to a material change together. Include a chronology of previous amendments in the application rather than leaving the officer to find them.
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.