What is not a material consideration?

When a council determines a planning application it can only take account of material considerations, meaning matters that genuinely relate to the use and development of land. A great many concerns that people raise, sometimes very strongly, simply fall outside that scope. The council is not allowed to refuse (or grant) permission on the strength of them.

This page sets out the points that are commonly raised but that carry no planning weight. Knowing these in advance saves wasted effort and helps you focus your comments on what will actually influence the decision.

Why some objections carry no weight

A consideration is only material if it relates to planning and fairly and reasonably relates to the development being decided. If a concern is really about private interests, personal circumstances, or matters controlled by other laws, it fails that test, no matter how genuine or deeply felt it is.

Case officers must set such points aside. If a committee were to refuse an application on non-material grounds, that decision would be vulnerable at appeal and could expose the council to an award of costs.

Community benefits cannot buy planning permission

R (Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd [2019] UKSC 53 is a strong modern example. A wind-turbine developer had offered an annual donation to a local community fund. The Supreme Court held that the payment was not a material planning consideration because it did not serve a planning purpose or fairly and reasonably relate to the use of the land. It was a general community benefit rather than a land-use effect of the development.

The court stressed the wider principle that planning permission cannot be bought or sold. A developer cannot turn an unrelated benefit into a material consideration simply by volunteering it or by asking the council to secure it through a planning condition. National or local policy may affect the weight given to something which is already a material planning consideration, but policy cannot make an immaterial consideration legally material.

What is not a material consideration in planning?

The following are not material considerations in the determination of a planning application:

• Loss of a private view. There is no right to a view in planning law, however cherished it is
• The effect on property values. Whether a proposal raises or lowers the value of nearby homes is not a planning matter
• Boundary and land-ownership disputes, private rights of way, restrictive covenants and other private legal matters. These are dealt with under civil law, not planning
• Party wall issues. These are governed by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, separately from planning
• Construction disturbance: temporary noise, dust, traffic and disruption can be material planning considerations, but they are often capable of being managed through proportionate planning conditions, a construction management plan or separate environmental controls rather than justifying refusal
• The identity, character, motives or conduct of the applicant. Permission runs with the land, not the person
• Competition and loss of trade. That a new shop or business might harm an existing one is not a planning consideration. The impact of a scheme on the vitality and viability of a town centre is a different thing, and that is material
• Moral objections to a lawful use
• The merits of a separate regulatory approval: planning should not duplicate controls under regimes such as Building Regulations, licensing or fire safety. However, the August 2026 NPPF is clear that matters controlled by another regime can still be material where they have land-use implications; the planning authority should normally assume that the separate regime will operate effectively
• Personal circumstances of objectors or the applicant, save in genuinely exceptional cases
• The “precedent” argument on its own. Each application is decided on its own merits; the fear that approval will “open the floodgates” is not, by itself, a reason to refuse
• Re-arguing the lawfulness of an established permission or use without evidence. An existing lawful position is not undone simply because a new application is made. But an extant permission, lawful use or permitted development right can itself be a material baseline or fallback position

Borderline and misunderstood points

Some concerns are frequently dismissed as immaterial when, framed correctly, they can be material:

• Traffic and parking. “There’s already nowhere to park” is weak; the additional highway safety or parking impact caused by the development is material
• Noise from the use. Disturbance during construction carries little weight and is usually controlled by condition, but noise from the completed use (a takeaway’s extractor fan, a venue’s patrons) can be
• Precedent. A bare “floodgates” fear is not material, but a genuine, evidenced concern that a decision would undermine a specific development-plan policy can be
• Overlooking versus loss of view. Losing a pleasant outlook is not material; being directly overlooked, with a real loss of privacy, is

The distinction is usually about reframing a concern in planning terms and tying it to the actual impact of the proposal.

What to do instead

If your concern is on the “not material” list, raising it with the planning authority will not help, but there may be another route. Boundary and covenant disputes are civil matters for a solicitor; nuisance from a use may be one for environmental health; unsafe building work is a matter for building control.

For the application itself, concentrate on genuine material considerations and set them out clearly. Our guides on objecting to and supporting an application show how.

Other Planning Application Sections

Not a Material Consideration Page Updated: 30th August 2026