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.

Matters that are not material

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
• Building Regulations and similar non-planning legislation
• Construction disturbance: noise, dust and disruption purely during the building works, as opposed to the finished use. This is rarely a reason to refuse, because it is temporary and is normally dealt with by a condition on working hours or a construction management plan, or by environmental health
• 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
• Matters controlled by other regimes: building regulations, licensing, environmental health, highways adoption, fire safety and so on. These are handled under their own legislation
• 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
• Anything already granted or lawful. Existing permissions and permitted development rights cannot be reopened through a new application

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.

Page Updated: 8th August 2026

Other Planning Application Sections