The cost of a non-material amendment under section 96A

A section 96A non material amendment cost has three parts, and the statutory fee is the smallest of them. The fee is a modest fixed sum, lower for a dwellinghouse than for other development and indexed annually from 1 April. The drawing package to support it typically costs several times that. And the real exposure is the cost of being told the change is material after you have already built it, because there is no right of appeal against a refused section 96A application.

What qualifies as non-material

Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lets a local planning authority make a change to any planning permission if it is satisfied that the change is not material. Parliament deliberately did not define materiality, so it is a judgement for the authority on the facts of the particular permission.

Context does the work. A 300mm shift in a window opening on a 200 dwelling scheme is plainly non-material. The same shift on a Grade II listed cottage where the fenestration rhythm was the point of the design is not. Scale, sensitivity of the site, the reasons given in the original officer report and whether the change touches anything a consultee commented on all feed into it.

What section 96A cannot do is change the description of development. If the amendment only works by rewriting the description, it is the wrong route, whatever its physical scale.

In practice the changes that go through comfortably are small dimensional adjustments, substitution of a material with a close equivalent, minor internal replanning that does not alter the external envelope, correction of a drawing error, and the addition or amendment of a drawing reference in the approved plans condition.

The fee and the 28 day determination period

The fee sits in the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended, in two bands: a lower figure for an application relating to a dwellinghouse and a higher one for any other development. Both are indexed annually with the revised figures applying from 1 April, so take the current amount from the council's fee page rather than from a remembered number.

The determination period is 28 days from the day after the application is received. That is the attraction of the route and the reason it is used to keep a build moving.

What the 28 days does not include is validation. An application submitted with the wrong drawing numbers or without a clear schedule of changes sits in a validation queue first, and the clock starts when the council accepts it as valid. On a live site that distinction is worth a week.

There is no statutory requirement to consult neighbours or re-publicise, though some authorities notify as a matter of practice. That is one reason officers are cautious about anything a third party might object to.

Drawing and document costs for a 96A submission

This is where the budget goes. A section 96A needs the amended drawing or drawings, issued at a new revision, plus a document that identifies exactly what has changed and why it is not material.

The schedule of changes is the item most often skimped and the one that decides the outcome. It should list each drawing by number and revision, the superseded version, the change in one line, and the dimension or specification affected. A side by side comparison extract, old against new, saves the officer reconstructing it.

For a householder project with one amended elevation, the drawing cost is an hour or two of the architect's time. For a 60 unit scheme where a change to the plot layout ripples through a site plan, a drainage layout, a landscape plan, a refuse strategy and a parking schedule, the amended set can run to a dozen drawings and the coordination is the expensive part.

Budget for the agent's time in writing the materiality argument. A paragraph explaining why the change does not affect anything the original decision turned on is worth more than any number of annotated drawings. A short Planning Statement is overkill for most, and the right length is usually one page.

Where the authority refuses to accept the route

Officers decline the section 96A route more often than applicants expect, and usually before a formal refusal. The common triggers are a change that affects an elevation facing a public view, anything that touches a condition imposed at the request of a statutory consultee, a change to the quantum of development however small, and anything that would alter the description.

When that happens you have three choices. Re-scope the amendment so the contentious element is removed and submit a narrower application. Split the change, dealing with the uncontroversial part under section 96A and the rest under section 73. Or accept that a section 73 application or a fresh application is needed.

Re-scoping is usually cheapest. Splitting is often fastest, because the uncontentious half can be determined in 28 days while the rest runs its eight weeks.

Effect on conditions and approved plans lists

Section 96A includes the power to impose new conditions and to remove or alter existing ones, provided the overall change is not material. In practice the condition that gets amended is the approved plans condition, and the amendment notice lists the new drawing references.

That has a downstream effect people forget. Every later submission, including each discharge of conditions application and the building control package, has to reference the amended drawing numbers. A discharge submission citing superseded drawings is a refusal waiting to happen, and the cost of that is the delay, as we set out in our note on the cost of a pre-commencement condition you cannot discharge.

The original permission's time limits are unaffected. No new permission is created, so the three year commencement period runs from the original grant and no new clock starts.

Community Infrastructure Levy liability is the other difference that matters. A section 73 creates a new permission and the levy is recalculated, which can produce a bill nobody budgeted for. A section 96A does not create a new permission, so the liability generally stands, though any change in chargeable floorspace needs checking with the collecting authority.

No appeal right and what that costs you

There is no right of appeal against the refusal of a section 96A application, and none against a failure to determine it. The only legal challenge is judicial review, which is about the lawfulness of the decision rather than its merits and is rarely proportionate for a minor amendment.

So the practical remedy is to apply again by a different route, and the cost of that is time. An eight week section 73 instead of a 28 day amendment, on a site where the contractor is waiting, is where the real money goes.

Two habits reduce the risk. Ask the case officer informally before you submit, describing the change in two sentences, and record the reply. And never build the amended version on the assumption that the application will succeed, because an amendment refused after construction becomes an enforcement question rather than a fee question.

Keeping a record of amendments across a build

By practical completion a scheme of any size has accumulated section 96A amendments, section 73 permissions, condition discharges and building control approvals, and nobody can reconstruct which drawing is current.

Keep a single amendment schedule from day one: date, application reference, route used, drawings superseded, drawings now current, and the condition affected. One spreadsheet, updated at each decision.

It earns its keep three times. At discharge of conditions, when the council asks which plans are approved. At sale or refinancing, when a solicitor raises enquiries on the planning history. And at warranty stage, when the as-built position has to be reconciled with the consented one.

Deciding between 96A, 73 and a fresh application

Section 73 varies or removes a condition and produces a new permission running alongside the original, and the courts have confirmed it cannot be used to vary a condition in a way that conflicts with the description of development. A fresh application is the route where the description has to change or where the scheme has moved on substantially.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 inserted a new section 73B allowing variation where the effect is not substantially different from the existing permission, which would sit between 96A and 73. Commencement has been staged, so verify whether it is available before relying on it and check the current position on gov.uk.

Choose on the appeal right as much as on the timetable. Where a change matters enough that you would want to challenge a refusal, section 73 is worth the extra weeks. For everything else, 28 days and no appeal is the better trade. For what the drafting side costs, PlanScope pricing sets out one free report, £50 per report, or Professional for unlimited reports.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.