How do I search for planning appeals?

Claw lets you search over 350,000 planning appeal decisions from the Planning Inspectorate and DPEA. Use our advanced filters to narrow results by local authority, appeal type, decision outcome, date range, and more. You can also use full-text search to find specific keywords in decision letters.

What planning appeal data does Claw include?

Claw indexes appeal decisions from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) covering England, the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) covering Scotland, and Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) covering Wales. This includes householder appeals, full planning appeals, enforcement notices, listed building appeals, and more — with AI-generated highlights from each decision letter.

What is the success rate for planning appeals in the UK?

Nationally, around 30-35% of planning appeals are allowed or part-allowed. However, success rates vary significantly by local authority and appeal type. Claw provides detailed success rate data for every local planning authority so you can benchmark your chances before appealing.

Claw is built for planning professionals — including planning consultants, architects, developers, solicitors, and local planning authority officers. Anyone who needs to research planning appeal precedents, analyse decision trends, or prepare statements of case will benefit from Claw.

Can I read the original appeal decision letters?

Yes. Claw provides direct access to original decision letter PDFs for every appeal. You can also use our AI chat feature to ask questions about any decision letter and get instant answers — no need to read the entire document.

How much does Claw cost?

Claw offers a 14-day free trial with full access. After that, plans start from £49/month for individuals. Team plans are available for organisations that need multiple seats and shared bookmarks. No credit card is required to start your trial.

165,167 planning appeals indexed

Find planning appeals in seconds

The UK's most comprehensive planning appeal search engine. Search, filter, and analyse appeal decisions with AI-powered insights — built for planning professionals.

No credit card required. 14-day free trial.

Trusted by planning professionals at

The UK's Most Comprehensive Planning Appeal Database

Planning Appeals

Local Authorities

Unique Appellants

Appeals Allowed

Decision Documents

Latest appeal decisions

The most recent planning appeals, summarised by AI.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/E5900/C/25/3373372

111A Commercial Road, E1 1RD

In the appeal decision regarding the enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for the property at 111A Commercial Road, the main issue was the alleged material change of use from a café/coffee shop (Class E) to a takeaway (sui-generis) without planning permission. The appellant, Mr. Aziz Rahman of Hungry Cow Ltd, contested the three-month compliance period set by the notice, arguing for an extension to six months to facilitate a pre-application for a mixed-use proposal and to assist employees in finding alternative jobs. The Inspector noted that two previous planning applications for the takeaway had been refused due to the site's proximity to schools, which contravened development plan policies aimed at limiting takeaways near educational institutions. The Inspector emphasized that extending the compliance period would not be reasonable, as it would prolong the availability of unhealthy food to school-aged children, negatively impacting their health and wellbeing. While acknowledging the potential job loss for two employees, the Inspector concluded that the health implications of the takeaway's operation outweighed the benefits of providing additional time for employment transition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld, maintaining the requirement to cease the takeaway use within the original three-month timeframe.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — PONTEFRACT

APP/X4725/C/25/3374765

4 Brooksfield, PONTEFRACT, WF9 3DL

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council regarding the unauthorized erection of a 1.7-meter high wall and gate posts at 4 Brooksfield, South Kirkby. The notice, issued on September 9, 2025, required the appellant, Mr. Dan Hall, to reduce the height of the structures to no more than one meter within eight weeks. The appeal was made on grounds (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Under ground (f), the appellant argued that the requirements of the notice were excessive and proposed an alternative solution that involved reducing only part of the wall's height while retaining the front wall. However, the Inspector concluded that this alternative did not adequately remedy the breach of planning control and that the requirements of the notice were necessary to ensure compliance with planning regulations. Under ground (g), the appellant requested an extension of the compliance period from eight weeks to three months. The Inspector agreed, noting that while the physical works could be completed in eight weeks, additional time was needed to appoint a contractor and ensure safe execution of the works adjacent to the highway. The final decision upheld the enforcement notice but varied the compliance period to three months. The appeal was dismissed on ground (f) and allowed on ground (g), resulting in the enforcement notice being upheld with the amended compliance timeframe.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — the UK

APP/X4725/C/25/3375942

Land at unit 8 Back Grantley Street, WF1 4LG

The appeal decision concerns a breach of planning control at Unit 8 Back Grantley Street, Wakefield, where Mr. Buz Yasin contested an enforcement notice issued by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. The notice, dated 27 October 2025, alleged an unauthorized change of use from B8 storage to B2 vehicle valeting and repairs. The Council required cessation of this use within three months. The appeal was based on ground (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which asserts that the alleged breach did not occur. The Inspector noted that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the alleged change of use had not taken place. The Council had received complaints from residents regarding noise and vehicle movements, and evidence from a site visit indicated ongoing repair activities. Despite the appellant's claims that the unit had not been used for valeting or repairs since the refusal of a planning application in August 2025, the Inspector found insufficient evidence to refute the Council's allegations. The timing of the appellant's planning application and their admission of prior use suggested that the change of use had indeed occurred. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, upheld the enforcement notice, and confirmed the requirement to cease the unauthorized use. The decision underscores the importance of demonstrating compliance with planning regulations, particularly in cases of alleged unauthorized activities.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/J2373/C/24/3348067

51 Charnley Road, FY1 4PE

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Blackpool Borough Council against Constabley Investments Limited for the unauthorized change of use of 51 Charnley Road from a guest house to a self-contained holiday let. The main issues addressed were whether the current use constituted a breach of planning control and whether the use fell within Class C1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. The appellant argued that the property had been used as a guest house since 1979, asserting that no material change had occurred. However, the Inspector found that the current use did not align with the characteristics of a Class C1 use, which typically includes the provision of meals and some level of service. The Inspector noted that the absence of significant services, such as prepared meals and on-site management, indicated that the property operated more as a self-catering holiday let, which is classified as sui generis. The Inspector dismissed the appeal, upheld the enforcement notice, and refused planning permission for the change of use. The decision emphasized that the lack of typical guest house services and the unrestricted access to the entire property by guests were critical factors in determining that a material change of use had occurred. The compliance period for the enforcement notice remains set at one month.

Referred

Appeal Referred — the UK

APP/A5270/C/26/3377789

44 Hill Rise, UB6 8PB

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Ealing against J & J Transport Limited for unauthorized developments at 44 Hill Rise, Greenford. The alleged breaches included the removal of front bay windows, the erection of a two-storey front extension, a part single-storey/part two-storey rear/side extension, alterations to the roof, and a material change of use to eight self-contained flats. The Inspector's main issues were the impact of the operational development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, as well as the effect of the change of use on living conditions. The appellant argued that previous planning permission (ref. 215758FUL) authorized the works, but the Inspector found that the completed development differed materially from the approved scheme, thus constituting unauthorized development. The Inspector allowed the appeal in part, granting planning permission for some structural changes while varying the enforcement notice to remove the requirement to cease the use of the property as eight flats. However, the appeal was dismissed regarding the material change of use, as no permission had been granted for the use of the property as eight self-contained flats, which was deemed a separate development requiring its own planning permission. In conclusion, the Inspector upheld the enforcement notice with modifications, requiring compliance within six months, while recognizing the development's contribution to the character of the area despite its non-compliance with space standards and planning regulations.

Everything you need for appeal research

Stop spending hours trawling through the Planning Inspectorate website. Find the precedents you need in seconds.

Powerful Search

Full-text search with advanced filtering by decision type, local authority, date range, and more.

Comprehensive Database

Over 350,000 planning appeal decisions from the Planning Inspectorate, fully indexed and searchable.

PDF Document Access

View original appeal decision letters and documents directly in the browser.

Save & Bookmark

Bookmark appeals for later reference and build your own library of relevant decisions.

Team Collaboration

Invite team members, share bookmarks, and collaborate on appeal research together.

AI-Powered Insights

Chat with appeal documents using AI. Ask questions and get instant answers from any decision letter.

What's New — July 2026

The latest features and improvements shipped to Claw.

AI Assistant Connector (Claude & ChatGPT)

New

Connect Claw to Claude or ChatGPT and search planning appeals conversationally — read decisions, check citations, and pull case details right inside your assistant.

Full-Text Decision Search

New

Search now finds cases by any wording inside the decision letter itself — not just the address, metadata, or AI summary.

Highlighted Search Matches

New

Results now show the exact passage from the decision that matched your search, highlighted in context.

View all updates

Trusted by planning professionals

See what our users are saying about Claw.

“We've recently started using Claw, an app designed to help find appeal decisions and have been really impressed by it. It has a load of useful features with search filters that allow you to search by constraints, authorities and type of appeal to find relevant appeal decisions easily and quickly. We'd highly recommend this app!”

PlanIt Consulting

Planning Consultancy

“The Eden team is always looking for ways to efficiently clear and pragmatic planning solutions for our clients and using CLAW enables us to do this.”

Eden Planning & Development Ltd

Planning & Development Consultancy

“It's a great app!”

Peter

Planning Professional

“We love Claw!”

Olivia

Planning Professional

“Hear hear, great app!”

Caroline

Planning Professional

“It's a game changer!”

Mark

Planning Professional

Simple, transparent pricing

Start with a 14-day free trial. No credit card required.

Standard

For planning professionals

£495/yr

£41.25/mo — save £93/yr

Unlimited search queries
Full planning appeal database access
PDF document viewing
Save searches and bookmarks
Team collaboration (up to 5 members)
AI Chat with Appeals

Premium

For power users who need AI assistance

£595/yr

£49.58/mo — save £113/yr

Everything in Standard
AI Chat with Appeals
Ask questions about any appeal document
Get instant AI-powered insights
Priority support

Cancel anytime. All plans include a 14-day money-back guarantee.

Lisa Rasch MRTPI

Founder, Claw App | Director, Freedom Planning and Design

A practicing planning consultant and the founder of CLAW — a planning appeals intelligence platform transforming how planners, consultants and local planning authorities engage with appeal data.

With a 100% success rate across her consultancy work, Lisa is trusted by homeowners, developers, architects and local authorities for her clarity, integrity and expertise. As a woman leading a fast-growing PlanTech company in a traditionally male-dominated sector, she brings together deep professional experience, commercial insight and a genuine drive to bridge the gap between policy, practice and technology.

Named one of The Planner's Women of Influence three years running.

Frequently asked questions

Everything you need to know about searching planning appeals with Claw.

Book a demo

Want to see Claw in action? Schedule a personalised demo with our team.