Material considerations: what counts and what does not

Material considerations in planning are the matters a council may lawfully take into account when deciding an application, and the test is broad: anything that relates to the use and development of land is capable of being one. That breadth surprises people on both sides of the counter. Loss of a private view is not material. Fear of a proposed use sometimes is. And a consideration being material tells you nothing at all about how much weight it will carry.

Those are two separate questions, and keeping them apart is most of what makes an objection or a planning statement effective.

The statutory basis

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires an authority dealing with an application to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 then sets the order of priority. The determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. That is the plan-led system in one sentence: the adopted plan is the starting point and the default, and a decision departing from it has to be justified by something else that is material.

The leading description of what qualifies came from the courts in 1970, in Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government, where the judgment held that any consideration relating to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Capable of being is the operative phrase. Whether it is material in a particular case, and what it is worth, are further steps.

Both the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance are material considerations themselves. So is an emerging local plan, a made neighbourhood plan, a supplementary planning document, and the planning history of the site.

Examples the courts and decision makers accept

The list is long and it is not closed. In practice the considerations that appear in officer reports include:

• The development plan and its policies, and conflict with or compliance with them
• National policy and guidance, including the Framework's design, heritage, flood risk and environment policies
• Highway safety, access, parking and servicing
• Noise, odour, light spill, dust and air quality
• Loss of daylight and sunlight, overlooking, overbearing effect and loss of privacy
• Design, scale, massing and the character and appearance of the area
• Impact on heritage assets and their settings
• Trees, landscape and ecology, including protected species and net gain
• Flood risk, drainage and contaminated land
• Economic benefits, including employment and regeneration
• Planning history and relevant appeal decisions
• Planning obligations and conditions that meet the published tests
• The personal circumstances of an applicant, in limited cases

Personal circumstances are the interesting one. They can be material, and the courts have accepted them in cases involving disability-related need and in some cases concerning Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, usually leading to a personal or temporary permission rather than a general one.

Matters that are not material

The exclusions catch far more objections than the inclusions do.

Loss of a private view is not a planning matter. Neither is the effect of a development on the value of your property, however obvious that effect is. Private rights are outside the system too: restrictive covenants, boundary disputes, rights of way as private law matters, party wall issues and ownership arguments are all for the civil courts rather than the planning committee.

The identity and motives of the applicant are not material, nor is a developer's profit, nor the fact that an objector dislikes the applicant. Competition is not material either, so loss of trade to an existing business is not a reason to refuse, although the effect of a proposal on the vitality of a town centre as a whole is.

Matters controlled by another regime are generally not material, including building regulations compliance, licensing, food hygiene and environmental permitting. The existence of that other control is itself relevant, because an authority may legitimately conclude a matter is better dealt with elsewhere rather than by condition. Our note on the six tests a planning condition has to meet explains why duplication fails.

The number of objections is not a material consideration. The planning content of those objections is. Two hundred identical letters raising only loss of view carry no more weight than one.

Weight as a separate question from materiality

This is the distinction that decides most arguments, and it was settled in Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment in 1995. Whether something is a material consideration is a question of law, which a court can review. How much weight to give it is a matter for the decision maker, and a court will only interfere if the weighting is irrational.

The practical consequence is blunt. An officer can accept that your point is material, agree it is a genuine harm, and still grant permission because other considerations outweigh it. That is not a failure to consider your objection.

Weight varies with evidence and with policy status. An emerging local plan at an early stage carries limited weight, increasing as it progresses and as objections are resolved. A harm asserted carries less weight than a harm measured. Which is why an objection with a drawn section, a measured distance or a published policy reference beats one with an adjective.

Loss of view, property value and private rights

These three deserve their own section because they account for most wasted objection letters.

There is no right to a view in English law, and the loss of one cannot be weighed in the planning balance. What can be weighed is the effect on outlook from inside a habitable room, which is a different thing: an overbearing wall three metres from a kitchen window is an amenity harm, while losing the hills beyond it is not.

Property value is outside the system because planning protects amenity and the public interest rather than private financial position. Raising it actively weakens an objection, because it signals to an officer that the real concern is not a planning one.

Private rights survive a planning permission untouched. A permission does not override a covenant, does not move a boundary and does not authorise trespass, and the decision notice will usually say so.

Fear and perception as considerations

Public concern can be material where there is some objective basis for it, and the courts have accepted that in cases involving facilities perceived as hazardous. Where the fear has no objective foundation, it carries little or no weight, and an authority that refused on unfounded public anxiety alone would be vulnerable.

The useful move for an objector is to find the objective hook. A concern about a proposed use is stronger when tied to the physical characteristics of the site, the hours of operation, the access arrangements or an operational matter the authority can condition.

Using the concept in an objection or a statement

Write to the framework rather than to your feelings. Start with the development plan policy you say is breached, quote the relevant part of it, then state the facts that engage it and the evidence for those facts.

Four things improve an objection measurably:

1. Cite policy by its reference, from the adopted plan rather than a draft, and quote the words you rely on.
2. Give measurements, distances, times and heights instead of descriptions.
3. Deal with the applicant's own documents, naming the drawing or report and the page.
4. Leave out every non-material point, because they dilute the material ones.

A Planning Statement does the same job from the applicant's side, setting out each material consideration and explaining why the balance falls in favour of permission. If the decision goes against you and you are considering the next step, the procedure for smaller cases is covered in our note on the twelve week householder appeal procedure.

Browse all 66 report types on PlanScope to see which documents carry the evidence for each consideration.

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