We have recently come across an LPA agreeing to the use of the section 73 procedure (and indeed the section 96A procedure for non material changes) in relation to a reserved matters approval. The idea behind the applications was first of all to add, to the reserved matters approval, a condition referring to approved drawings and then to "vary" that condition in order to approve a revised drawing. This does not seem to us to be an appropriate use of these sections, which are designed for use in connection with planning permissions rather than reserved matters approvals. The applicant has persuaded the LPA to take a broad view of the meaning of "planning permission" (based upon the definition in section 336 TCPA). Among other issues, if these procedures can be used for reserved matters approvals, then the use of section 73 in this context would "revive" a planning permission (by the grant of a new planning permission) in relation to which the time for applying for further reserved matters had expired. We would welcome hearing from readers who have come across this in practice.