Material considerations and what the law allows

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 tells a council what it must consider when deciding an application: the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 then says the decision must accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Those two sentences govern every planning decision in England, and they explain why some objections change outcomes and others are recorded and set aside.

The question is not whether a concern is reasonable. It is whether the law allows it to be taken into account.

The statutory starting point

The plan-led system means the adopted development plan comes first. In most areas that is the local plan, together with any made neighbourhood plan and, in London, the spatial development strategy.

A proposal that accords with the plan should be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A proposal that conflicts with the plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The phrase does the work in both directions, and national policy is the material consideration most often used to displace a plan policy, particularly where the plan is old or its policies are out of date.

That is why officer reports are structured the way they are: development plan first, then national policy, then everything else.

The test the courts apply

A consideration is material if it relates to the use and development of land and serves a planning purpose. Both limbs have to be satisfied, and the second is the one that catches strongly felt objections.

A planning purpose is about the use of land in the public interest. Protecting a neighbour's outlook from overbearing development is a planning purpose. Protecting the resale value of their house is not, even though the two often move together. The courts have been consistent about this distinction for decades, and officers apply it every week without much room for negotiation.

The second point is that materiality and weight are different. A consideration can be material and still carry almost no weight. Deciding how much weight to give a material consideration is for the decision maker, and a court will not interfere unless the decision is irrational. Objectors sometimes win the materiality argument and lose the application anyway, which is not a failure of the process.

Considerations that are material

The list is longer than most people expect.

• Development plan policies, including any made neighbourhood plan.
• National policy in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.
• Design, layout, scale, massing and the appearance of a proposal in its setting.
• Residential amenity, including overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise, odour and disturbance.
• Highway safety, access, parking and servicing.
• Effects on heritage assets, including listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeology.
• Flood risk and drainage, ecology, protected species and biodiversity net gain.
• Planning history, including previous refusals and appeal decisions on the site.
• The fallback position, meaning what the applicant could lawfully do without permission.
• Public sector equality duty considerations, and human rights where they are engaged.

Personal circumstances can be material in limited cases, such as the needs of a disabled occupant, though they usually carry weight only where the harm is modest and the need is evidenced.

Appeal decisions elsewhere are material as an indication of how inspectors have approached a similar issue, but they are not binding precedent and should never be presented as though they settle the point.

Considerations that are not

The recurring ones are worth stating plainly, because letters built on them are wasted effort.

Loss of a private view is not material, although loss of light and being overbearing are. Property values are not material. The identity, motives, nationality or past conduct of the applicant are not material. Boundary disputes, restrictive covenants and rights of way are private law matters, not planning ones. Competition with an existing business is not material, although the effect of a proposal on the vitality and viability of a town centre is a policy issue in its own right.

Matters controlled by other regimes are treated cautiously rather than ignored. Building Regulations compliance, licensing, food hygiene and environmental permitting each have their own regulator, and a council should not refuse permission on a ground another regime controls, though it can take the existence of that control into account.

Construction disturbance is material but usually attracts limited weight, because it is temporary and controlled by condition rather than by refusal.

Emerging policy and how much weight it carries

Draft plans are material from the point they exist, and the weight they carry increases as they advance. National policy sets out the factors: the stage the plan has reached, the extent of unresolved objections to the relevant policies, and the degree of consistency with the Framework.

A policy in a submitted plan with no outstanding objections is close to full weight. The same policy at consultation draft stage, with objections from major landowners, carries very little. Where an application turns on an emerging allocation, the weight argument usually matters more than the policy wording, and the position in settlement boundaries in local plans shows how quickly that can change through an examination.

National statements made outside the Framework, such as ministerial statements, are also material, and their status is covered in written ministerial statements in planning.

Two other points about emerging policy catch people out. A neighbourhood plan becomes part of the development plan once it is made, rather than being a material consideration outside it. And a plan that has been adopted since your last application on the same site may have changed the policy position entirely, so check the adoption date before recycling an earlier objection or an earlier supporting statement.

How materiality appears in an officer report

The report should identify the development plan policies engaged, summarise the representations, then assess the material considerations and explain the weight given to each. A conclusion then applies section 38(6): whether the proposal accords with the plan and, if not, whether other considerations indicate a different outcome.

Failing to take into account a material consideration, or taking into account something immaterial, is a ground of challenge by judicial review. In practice successful challenges are rare, because officers write reports knowing this and because weight is protected from review.

There is one honest uncertainty worth naming. The line between a material consideration given little weight and a consideration treated as immaterial is not always drawn consistently between authorities, and two officers can record the same point differently. That is a reason to state your point in policy terms rather than to rely on the officer to translate it.

For objectors, the practical use is narrower and more useful than litigation. Read the assessment section, identify which material consideration your point falls under, and phrase it in those terms. A letter that says the extension will overlook the rear bedroom from five metres engages residential amenity. The same letter saying it will spoil the street engages nothing in particular.

Applicants face the same discipline in reverse: every supporting document exists to put material considerations in front of the decision maker in a form the officer can use. The full list of report types shows which document carries which consideration, from heritage to flood risk to transport.

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