Material planning considerations

General guidance, not advice. This guide explains how UK planning law works in general terms. It is not legal or planning advice for your specific site, and the law changes over time and differs between England and Wales. Check the current rules with your local planning authority or a qualified planning professional before you act.

A material planning consideration is any consideration relevant to the use and development of land. It is the lens through which every planning application is judged. The statute is blunt about it: applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. So the decision is never a free choice by the council - it is a structured weighing of the plan against every other material matter that bears on the use of the land.

Two things follow. First, the development plan is the starting point, not a tiebreaker that only matters when everything else is level. Second, almost anything that touches land use can be a material consideration - but the weight it carries is the real question, and that is where most applications are won or lost.

What counts as a material consideration

There is no closed list. The courts have consistently held that a material consideration is anything that relates to the use and development of land - in other words, anything that ought legitimately to influence a planning decision. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the local planning authority, in dealing with an application, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan (so far as material to the application), any local finance considerations, and "any other material considerations." The companion provision, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, sets the statutory rule: applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

What counts as "relevant" is judged against the land use effects of the proposal, not against whether a person likes or dislikes the applicant. A matter can be material even if it is not raised by a specific policy - planning history, the character of an area, and cumulative impact are all capable of being material considerations in their own right.

The statutory starting point: section 38(6)

The development plan is not one consideration among many - it is the starting point. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, read with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, fixes the order of analysis: the application is determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) restates that statutory rule in its opening chapter and says the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Annex A sets out what that means for weight: the Framework's national decision-making policies are material considerations from the day of publication; development plan policies that are materially inconsistent with them should be given very limited weight; and other plan policies are not given reduced weight simply because they were adopted before this Framework. Where an application conflicts with an up-to-date plan, the starting point under section 38(6) remains determination in accordance with that plan - a council departs from it only where material considerations in the particular case indicate otherwise. (The August 2026 Framework expresses the positive half of this at policy S3(1)(c): proposals according with both an up-to-date plan and the national decision-making policies should be approved without delay.)

In Wales the position is the same in law. Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12), paragraph 1.22 states that planning applications "must be determined in accordance with the adopted plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise," citing the same section 38(6). PPW paragraph 1.18 frames it as a presumption in favour of sustainable development "in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

The two limbs in practice: the plan, and everything else

Every decision therefore runs on two limbs: the development plan, and the other material considerations. The weight given to each is the real work of planning assessment.

The development plan limb includes the adopted local plan (or, in Wales, the Local Development Plan and, where relevant, the Strategic Development Plan and Future Wales 2040), plus any made neighbourhood plan. The NPPF is itself a material consideration: Annex A says so expressly - "The policies in this Framework are material considerations which must be taken into account in decision-making from the day of its publication." In Wales, PPW and the Technical Advice Notes occupy the equivalent national policy role.

The other-material-considerations limb is where the specific facts of the site come in: neighbour amenity, highways and access, design, heritage, ecology, flood risk, trees, and so on. The weight each carries is a matter of planning judgement, but that judgement has to be exercised in accordance with policy. NPPF policy DM4(1) lets councils give weight to policies in emerging plans according to their stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections, and the degree of compliance with the Framework's plan-making policies - so even a draft local plan can attract weight, and a post-examination neighbourhood plan can carry significant weight.

Common material considerations

The matters that most often decide an application are well-trodden. The list below is not exhaustive, but it covers the ground that comes up in the majority of cases in England and Wales:

• Local plan and neighbourhood plan policies. The development plan itself. Adopted policies carry full weight; emerging policies carry weight under NPPF policy DM4(1) according to their stage and degree of compliance with the Framework.
• National policy. The NPPF in England, PPW and the TANs in Wales. These frame how much weight specific issues - design, Green Belt, heritage, flood risk - should receive.
• Planning history and previous appeal decisions. A consistent run of appeal decisions on a similar proposal can be a material consideration, as can the planning history of the site itself.
• Neighbour amenity. Loss of light, outlook, privacy, and the impact of noise, odour or disturbance on existing occupiers. One of the most common reasons for refusal.
• Highways and access. Safe access, parking, and the effect on the local road network. The highway authority is a statutory consultee for a reason.
• Design. NPPF chapter 14 (the DP policies) gives substantial weight to design quality, and PPW chapter 3 makes the same point for Wales. Poor design is, per the NPPF, a valid reason on its own to refuse.
• Heritage and conservation. The effect on listed buildings and conservation areas is a statutory consideration under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, with "substantial weight" given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset (NPPF policy HE6(1)).
• Ecology and biodiversity net gain. Effect on protected species and designated sites, and, in England, the mandatory biodiversity net gain requirement.
• Flood risk. The sequential and exception tests in the NPPF, and TAN 15 in Wales, make flood risk a material consideration that can be decisive on vulnerable sites.
• Trees and landscape. Tree Preservation Orders, the effect on street trees, and the wider landscape and townscape impact.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF policies S3, S4 and S5)

In England the Framework applies a presumption in favour of sustainable development to every decision, and since August 2026 that presumption routes by location. NPPF policy S3 sets the route: within a settlement, apply policy S4; outside a settlement, apply policy S5; and in all locations, proposals that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the national decision-making policies should be approved without delay. Where a site falls partly inside and partly outside a settlement, S4 and S5 are applied to the relevant parts before an overall view is taken. "Settlement" is defined in the Annex B glossary.

Within a settlement, S4 applies. Proposals "should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework." S4(2) lists the circumstances in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed: a substantial adverse impact on land or buildings allocated or safeguarded in the plan, or on the Framework's policies for existing recreational land and facilities (HC7), Local Green Space (HC8), areas of particular importance for biodiversity and geodiversity (N6), Protected Landscapes (N4) and development within residential curtilages (L2(1)(d)); the loss of undeveloped land used for a cemetery, burial ground, water storage or flood risk management; or failure to comply with a national decision-making policy that says proposals should be refused in specific circumstances.

Outside a settlement, S5 applies, and it is much narrower. Only the categories listed at S5(1)(a) to (j) should be approved, and then only unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed. Housing land supply enters here rather than at S4: S5(1)(j) covers development addressing an evidenced unmet need, which expressly includes housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test (the machinery for both now sits in Annex D, with the 75% consequence at Annex D 12(c)). The unmet need alone is not enough: S5(1)(j) also requires the development to be physically well-related to an existing settlement and of a scale the infrastructure can accommodate, or to be major freight and logistics development. A proposal in none of the S5(1) categories is not automatically refused either - S5(4) allows approval in exceptional circumstances where the benefits would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, and isolated homes have their own policy at HO11. S5 does not apply in the Green Belt or on Local Green Space, which are determined under policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and GB8 instead - and on grey belt land the same supply and delivery triggers reappear at GB7(1)(g).

One further qualification: under policy S6, where a proposal involving the provision of housing conflicts with a neighbourhood plan made within the last five years that contains allocations meeting its housing requirement, the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed - a considerable shield for communities with a recent plan. And Annex A(3) preserves a guard for recently adopted plans: for five years from adoption, where the authority can demonstrate a five year supply and the Housing Delivery Test is above 75%, a local housing need figure higher than the adopted requirement is not evidence of unmet need for the purposes of S5(1)(j).

Wales has no equivalent of the S4/S5 presumption. PPW paragraph 1.18 frames the presumption as one in favour of sustainable development "in accordance with the development plan" - the Welsh presumption is anchored to the adopted plan, and a housing land supply shortfall does not switch on a separate policy route in the way S5(1)(j) does in England. The same section 38(6) statutory rule applies in both countries; the English policy overlay has no direct counterpart in PPW.

How Inspectors weigh considerations on appeal

On appeal, the same section 38(6) starting point applies, and the Inspector's job is to re-take the planning balance - not to defer to the council's view. An Inspector will identify the relevant policies, decide how much weight each carries, weigh the benefits of the proposal against the harms, and reach a reasoned conclusion. In England the Inspector must also apply the presumption at policy S3 - S4 inside a settlement, S5 outside it - alongside the section 38(6) balance, and an up-to-date plan that the proposal conflicts with is a strong reason to dismiss.

Because appeal decisions turn on the weight given to specific material considerations, reading how Inspectors have weighed considerations for your council is one of the best ways to anticipate your own decision. See our Bristol appeal odds page for a worked example of how the balance plays out for one authority.

What is NOT a material consideration

Just as important is what you cannot rely on. The planning system is concerned with the use and development of land in the public interest - not with private grievances, civil arrangements, or the identity of the applicant. The following are generally not material considerations:

• Loss of a private view. There is no right to a view in planning law. Outlook and overshadowing can be material; a prized view over someone else's land is not.
• Covenants, restrictive covenants and easements. These are civil matters between landowners, not planning matters. The council will not enforce them.
• The applicant's character or identity. Who is applying is irrelevant; the use of the land is what matters.
• Commercial competition. PPW paragraph 1.19 is explicit that "it is not the function of the planning system to interfere with or inhibit competition between users of and investors in land" - a principle that applies on both sides of the border. "It will hurt my business" is not a planning objection.
• Private nuisance and boundary disputes. Whether a development constitutes a private nuisance is a civil law matter for the courts, not a planning consideration - though the amenity impacts (noise, disturbance) that underlie it can be material in their own right.
• Matters covered by other regimes. Building Regulations, licensing, environmental permitting and health and safety are generally handled separately and are not usually material to the planning decision.

The line is not always clean - the amenity impacts behind a "nuisance" objection are material even though the private nuisance itself is not - but the principle holds: if it does not relate to the use and development of land, it does not belong in the planning balance.

What to do before you apply

Because the decision is a structured weighing of the plan against material considerations, the most useful thing you can do before you file is work out, in advance, which considerations will apply to your site and how much weight each is likely to carry. That means reading your council's adopted local plan (or LDP in Wales), the made neighbourhood plan if there is one, and the relevant national policy - then mapping each policy and each site-specific issue onto your proposal.

This is exactly the work GapSense automates. It reads the development plan and national policy that will decide your application, surfaces the material considerations that apply to your site, and weighs each one - so you know, before you submit, where the balance is likely to land. Get started free, or read more on how it works.

Disclaimer: this guide is general information, not legal or planning advice, and reading it does not create any professional relationship. Planning law and national policy change, and vary between England and Wales. Always confirm the current position with the relevant legislation, your local planning authority, or a qualified planning consultant before making a decision.

Sources: the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), and Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12). The statutory position reflects the consolidated legislation as at August 2026; always check the live legislation and your council's local position.