Non-Material Amendment

Contents

Once permission is granted, plans often need small adjustments. A non-material amendment under Section 96A is the quickest and cheapest way to make a genuinely minor change to an approved scheme, and for the right change it is the obvious route.

The catch is that “non-material” is nowhere defined in law, the decision rests entirely with your local planning authority, and if they refuse you there is no appeal. This page explains what the power actually allows, where the limits sit, what it costs, and when you should be using a different application instead. If you would like help, please make contact.

Need help with a planning application?

Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.

Get in touch →

What is a non-material amendment?

The power sits in Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, inserted by the Planning Act 2008 and in force since 1 October 2009. It allows a local planning authority to make a change to a planning permission relating to land in their area if they are satisfied that the change is not material.

Since March 2017 the power in England also extends to a permission in principle granted following an application to that authority.

The power expressly includes imposing new conditions and removing or altering existing ones. Two conditions are carved out and cannot be touched by this route: the biodiversity gain condition under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A, and the development progress report condition under Section 90B.

There is no legal definition of non-material

This is the single most important thing to understand about a Section 96A application. Parliament did not define “non-material”, and no regulation supplies a test. The judgement belongs to the local planning authority on the facts of each case.

The one statutory steer is in Section 96A(2): in deciding whether a change is material, the authority must have regard to the effect of the change, together with any previous changes made under this section, on the permission as originally granted. In other words the changes are cumulative. A series of individually trivial amendments can tip over into material when considered together, so you cannot salami-slice a significant change into several small ones.

Because materiality is contextual, a change that is non-material on one permission may be material on another. A small increase in height might be nothing on a large rural industrial unit and highly material on a terraced house beside a neighbour’s window. Authorities vary in where they draw the line, and many publish their own guidance on what they will accept.

What will usually be refused

As a general rule the following would not be accepted, although each application is considered on its own merits and there may be exceptions:

the application site area changes in a way that is more than genuinely non-material
the description of development changes in a way that materially alters what the permission authorises
changes to external details that would materially alter the appearance of the building
a significant increase in the size of any part of the development
an increase in the height of the building or structure
moving any part of the development closer to a neighbour
changing windows or doors in an elevation facing a neighbour in a way that increases overlooking
anything causing greater visual intrusion, loss of light or sense of enclosure for neighbours
anything that would affect a relevant objection made to the original proposal
where enforcement action has already begun, for example for not building in accordance with the approved plans

The description of development and the site area need more care than a simple yes/no rule suggests. Section 96A allows a non-material change to the planning permission itself, so a change to wording in the operative permission is not automatically outside the power; the question remains whether the particular change is genuinely non-material. The Court of Appeal in Finney expressly identified section 96A as the available route for a non-material change, while R (Dennis) v London Borough of Southwark [2024] EWHC 57 (Admin) shows that a phased outline permission is not necessarily severable. On the facts, the OPP was a single planning permission and adding the word “severable” significantly enlarged the bundle of rights it granted; that was a material amendment and therefore outside section 96A. A Section 73 application is different: it cannot alter the description of development, although a change to a conditioned plan, potentially including a red-line plan, may be possible where the operative description remains unchanged and the amendment falls within the scope of the permission.

Who can apply, and how it is handled

An application can only be made by, or on behalf of, someone with an interest in the land. You need not be the original applicant. A freeholder, leaseholder, mortgage lender or a party to an exchanged contract would all qualify. Where you have an interest in only part of the land, the application can be made only in respect of so much of the permission as affects the land in which you have that interest.

The application must be made in the form and manner prescribed by development order. Neighbours are not normally notified. Where an authority does consult, it will typically allow 21 days, which sits awkwardly against a target determination period of 28 days. That period should only be extended by written agreement.

A successful Section 96A application amends the existing permission. This is the key structural difference from Section 73, which grants a wholly new permission sitting alongside the original. With Section 96A there is only ever one permission, and your original decision notice should be read together with the amendment.

Owners and agricultural tenants still have to be told. Article 10(3) of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 requires you, at the same time as making the application, to give notice to anyone else who is an owner of the land, or a tenant of an agricultural holding forming part of it, stating what the application is for, where a copy can be viewed, and that representations must be made to the council within 14 days of the date the notice is given. The council must take those representations into account. There is no certificate to sign on this route, which is the main procedural difference from a full application and its ownership certificates.

There is no right of appeal

If a non-material amendment is refused, you cannot appeal. Section 96A sits outside the Section 78 appeal right, so the Planning Inspectorate has no jurisdiction over it.

Your options after a refusal are to apply again with a reduced or better-evidenced change, to apply under Section 73 if the change can be delivered by varying a condition, or to submit a fresh planning application. Judicial review exists in principle but goes to the lawfulness of the decision rather than its planning merits, and is rarely proportionate for a change of this scale.

This matters when you are choosing your route. A Section 73 refusal can be appealed under Section 78; a Section 96A refusal cannot. Where a change is borderline, that asymmetry is a real argument for the Section 73 route even though it costs more and takes longer. Our guide to planning appeals and timescales covers the routes that do exist.

Listed buildings and other consents

Section 96A cannot be used to amend listed building consent. Conservation area consent no longer exists in England, having been abolished on 1 October 2013, and demolition in a conservation area is dealt with as planning permission instead. For a listed building, conditions are varied or discharged under Section 19 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which we cover on our page about varying or discharging listed building consent conditions. If your scheme involves both planning permission and listed building consent, a change may need handling twice under two different regimes.

Should you use a non-material amendment?

Often yes, because for a genuinely small change nothing else is as quick or as cheap. But pause if any of the following apply:

if the change is borderline, remember there is no appeal, so a refusal simply costs you time and you start again elsewhere
if you have already made one or more Section 96A changes, the cumulative test makes the next one harder, not easier
if the change can be traced to a condition and is more than trivial, Section 73 is the more robust route and carries an appeal right
if the description of development or red line needs to change, do not assume either route is available: section 96A only works if the change is genuinely non-material, while section 73 cannot change the operative description and can only work through a relevant condition
if enforcement action has started, expect a refusal and deal with the enforcement position first

A practical note: authorities generally prefer to be asked early. Applying after the change has been built turns a tidy amendment into a retrospective problem, and a Section 96A application is not a way to regularise something already carried out in breach of the approved plans.

Time and cost of a non-material amendment

The target for determining a non-material amendment is 28 days, and it is normally decided by officers under delegated powers rather than going to committee.

There is a fee, and it is lower than for other application types, with a reduced rate for householder development. We do not quote figures because they are reviewed annually and reforms under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 will eventually allow authorities to set their own. Check the current position on our planning fees page.

If you would like a consultant to handle a non-material amendment, fill in the fee proposal form and we will do the rest.

See also our guide to the types of planning application.