Material planning considerations: what a council can and cannot weigh

The list of material considerations a planning officer must weigh in an objection or letter of support, and the common complaints that carry no weight at all.

Why the distinction matters

A planning decision must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. That sentence, from section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, is why the content of an objection matters more than its tone. Anything that is not a material consideration is set aside, however strongly felt.

Material considerations neighbours most often rely on

• Overlooking and loss of privacy. New windows, balconies, roof terraces or raised platforms that look directly into habitable rooms or the private part of a garden.
• Loss of daylight and sunlight. Councils apply the Building Research Establishment guidance and many use a 45 degree test from the nearest habitable room window. See the loss of light guide.
• Overbearing impact and loss of outlook. A wall or bulk so close and so large that it dominates the outlook from a room or garden. Outlook is not the same as a view: it is about enclosure, not scenery.
• Design, scale and character. Whether the proposal respects the pattern, height, materials and rhythm of its surroundings. Local plans always have a design policy.
• Highway safety, access and parking. Visibility at an access, traffic generation on unsuitable roads, and displacement of parking. In England the NPPF says proposals should be refused where the impact on highway safety would be unacceptable or the residual cumulative impact on the network severe.
• Noise, disturbance and living conditions. Particularly for changes of use, late-night activity, plant and extraction.
• Heritage. Harm to a listed building, a conservation area or their setting.
• Trees, landscape and biodiversity. Protected trees, hedgerows and habitats.
• Flooding and drainage. Flood risk to the site or to others, and surface water run-off.
• Conflict with adopted policy. A specific policy in the local plan or national policy that the proposal breaches.
• Planning history and precedent. A previous refusal on the same site for the same reasons is relevant; an approval elsewhere is relevant only if it is genuinely comparable.

Things that carry no weight

• Loss of a private view.
• Effect on the value of your property.
• Loss of trade, or competition with an existing business.
• The identity, motives or past conduct of the applicant.
• Private matters: restrictive covenants, boundary disputes, rights of way disputes, and rights to light as a private legal right (which is a matter for the courts, not the planning system).
• Disturbance from the building work itself. Construction is temporary and controlled by other law and by conditions.
• That the work has already started or been done. That is an enforcement question; the application is decided on its merits.
• Moral or personal objections to the occupants or the use.

How Curtilage uses this

When you tell Curtilage what concerns you in your own words, it sorts the points. The material ones become the grounds of the letter, each tied to a policy that exists for your council. The non-material ones are listed back to you with a one-line reason and left out of the letter, so the officer reads only what counts.

Updated 2026-09-14. Curtilage is not legal advice.