171,998 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.

The UK's Most Comprehensive Planning Appeal Database

0
Planning Appeals
0+
Local Authorities
0+
Unique Appellants
0%
Appeals Allowed
0
Decision Documents

Latest appeal decisions

The most recent planning appeals, summarised by AI.

Recovered

Appeal Recovered — BEDFORD

APP/K0235/C/26/3378548

Land known as Struttle End Farm, Renhold Road, BEDFORD, MK44 2RH

The planning appeal decision letter concerns a costs application made by Jonathan Erven and I Want Storage Ltd against Bedford Borough Council (LPA) related to enforcement notices issued for the unauthorized use of land at Struttle End Farm. The applicants sought a full award of costs, alleging that the LPA acted unreasonably in three main areas: inadequate investigation of land occupiers, failure to correct an erroneous plan attached to the enforcement notice, and incorrect identification of the land in question. The Inspector, J. Whitfield, addressed these points systematically. Regarding the identification of land, the Inspector noted that since the appeals were successful on ground (e), there was no need to determine whether the LPA had correctly identified the land, thus not constituting unreasonable behavior. On the issue of the incorrect plan, while the LPA's oversight was regrettable, it was not deemed unreasonable as the error was identified in time for the applicants to respond. The Inspector acknowledged that the LPA's investigation into potential land occupiers was insufficient, which constituted unreasonable behavior. However, the LPA had justified its actions during the appeal, suggesting that even with better initial investigation, the outcome would not have changed. Consequently, the Inspector concluded that the applicants did not incur unnecessary expenses due to the LPA's actions, leading to the refusal of the costs application. In summary, the Inspector denied the costs application, citing a lack of incurred unnecessary expenses despite recognizing some unreasonable behavior by the LPA.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — the UK

2025/3214

131 - 132 Upper Street, N1 1QP

The appeal decision concerns the use of the basement, ground, and first floors of 131-132 Upper Street, London, for Class E purposes, following the refusal of planning permission by the London Borough of Islington. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether this development would result in an unacceptable loss of public house floorspace, as the Council argued it would violate Policy HC7 of the London Plan and Policy R11 of the Islington Strategic and Development Management Policies. The appellant contended that the premises, previously known as "The John Salt," did not constitute a traditional public house but rather a bar or restaurant, thus not warranting protection under the cited policies. The Inspector noted that the property had been vacant since November 2022 and emphasized that the previous use did not demonstrate significant community or heritage value, which is a requirement for protection under the relevant policies. In assessing the appeal, the Inspector found that the absence of local objections and the lack of evidence for the premises' community value supported the appellant's case. The Inspector also referenced previous appeal decisions that differentiated between bars and traditional public houses, concluding that the proposed Class E use would not detrimentally affect the area. Ultimately, the Inspector allowed the appeal, granting planning permission for the proposed use, subject to conditions outlined in the decision. An application for costs made by the appellant against the Council was noted as a separate matter.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Cranleigh

PIP/2025/02046

Land At Alfold Farm, Cranleigh, GU6 8HP

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by Rowe Property Investments Ltd for permission in principle for residential development comprising a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 dwellings at Alfold Farm, Loxwood Road, Alfold, Cranleigh. The main issue evaluated by the Inspector was the suitability of the site for residential development, particularly regarding its impact on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector noted that while the site is located outside the defined settlement boundary and contributes positively to the countryside's character, the proposed development would only result in minor harm due to its modest scale. The surrounding area contains a mix of residential and commercial developments, suggesting that the site is physically well-related to existing built forms. The Inspector acknowledged existing permissions for nearby developments, which would cumulatively result in similar minor impacts. Despite conflicts with local planning policies aimed at preserving the countryside's character, the Inspector emphasized the Council's significant shortfall in housing supply (1.28 years) as a critical factor. The proposal would address this unmet need by delivering new dwellings, which the Inspector deemed a substantial benefit. Additionally, the development would provide economic benefits during construction and occupation. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the minor harms, allowing the appeal and granting permission in principle for the development. No specific conditions were detailed in the decision.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

26/00840/FUL

95 Godwin Street, BD1 3PP

The planning appeal decision concerns the installation of a roller shutter at 95 Godwin Street, Bradford, which was refused by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the roller shutter on the character and appearance of both the host building and the City Centre Conservation Area (CA). The Inspector noted that the building is a late Victorian structure contributing positively to the CA, which is characterized by its traditional architectural detailing. The Bradford Shopfront Design Guide emphasizes that external security measures should be visually permeable and should not obstruct architectural features. The installed roller shutter, while intended to enhance security, was deemed to detract from the building's aesthetic by obstructing views of the recessed entrance and appearing overly dominant. Despite recognizing some public benefits, such as improved security and reduced anti-social behavior, the Inspector concluded that these did not outweigh the minor harm caused to the heritage asset. The proposal was found to conflict with several policies aimed at preserving the character of the CA and ensuring good design. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, stating that the adverse effects of the roller shutter substantially outweighed the benefits. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of heritage assets in conservation areas.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

25/03280/FUL

2 Queen Annes Grove, EN1 2JP

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by Mr. Dushmanthe Ranetunge to change the use of a residential care home at 2 Queen Annes Grove, Enfield, from accommodating six residents (Use Class C3(b)) to seven residents (Use Class C2). The London Borough of Enfield refused the application, prompting the appeal. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the proposed change on the residential character of the area and the living conditions of neighboring residents, particularly regarding noise and disturbance, as well as highway safety. The Inspector noted that while the property currently operates with a 24-hour staff presence and accommodates six residents, the proposal to increase the number of residents raised concerns about potential intensification of activity and its effects on neighbors. The Inspector expressed uncertainty about the operational details of the proposed use, including staff numbers and visitor frequency, which were not adequately addressed by the appellant. Evidence from local residents indicated existing disturbances from the current operation, suggesting that an increase to seven residents could exacerbate these issues. Although the proposal was deemed acceptable in terms of highway safety, the significant potential harm to residential amenity led to a conclusion against the appeal. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, citing conflicts with local and national planning policies aimed at safeguarding residential character and amenity. While acknowledging the potential benefits of the proposal, such as providing additional accommodation for individuals with disabilities, the Inspector concluded that these benefits did not outweigh the identified harms. No specific conditions were attached to the decision as the appeal was dismissed outright.

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 — September 2026

The latest features and improvements shipped to Claw.

Cancel & Resume Your Plan

New

Cancel your subscription right from your account — you keep full access until the end of your paid term, it won’t auto-renew, and you can resume in one click if you change your mind.

Up-to-Date Appeal Decisions

Improvement

New Planning Inspectorate (England) decisions are captured and kept current automatically, with decision letters restored across recent appeals.

Smoother Appeal Viewer

Improvement

The decision viewer now closes reliably and shows a clear message when a decision letter isn’t available yet, instead of hanging.

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
Most Popular

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, Founder of Claw

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.

The Planner's Women of Influence 2026

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.