169,726 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.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissedthe UK

PL/2000/25

121 Cambridge Road, HA2 7LB

The appeal decision concerns a proposed development at 121 Cambridge Road, Harrow, which included ground floor front and rear extensions, a porch, a first-floor side and rear extension, and alterations to an existing loft dormer. The London Borough of Harrow refused the planning application, leading to the appeal by Mr. Arun Selvaraj. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, the living conditions of neighboring properties (119 and 123 Cambridge Road), and the potential for increased flooding in the area. The Inspector found that the proposed rear dormer would be disproportionately large and irregular, conflicting with local design guidelines and detracting from the character of the area. Additionally, the single-storey rear extension was deemed too dominant, obstructing light and outlook for the neighboring properties, which would result in an overbearing effect. The Inspector noted that a fallback position from a prior approval for a smaller extension would be less harmful to the neighbors' living conditions. Regarding flooding, the proposal was considered likely to increase surface water runoff without adequate drainage measures, conflicting with policies aimed at managing flood risks. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, concluding that the proposed development would harm the character of the area, negatively impact the living conditions of neighbors, and increase flooding risks. No conditions were imposed as the appeal was dismissed outright.

Planning appealForfar

WAY-505-61 (Wayleave)

Broom Farm, Forfar

The Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) has confirmed the withdrawal of a wayleave application related to Broom Farm, Tannadice, Forfar, as communicated in correspondence dated 18 September 2026. The application was associated with the planning authority reference LT455-106. The main issue at hand was the necessity of the wayleave for the proposed development. However, the withdrawal indicates that the parties involved, including the landowner, MFMac, and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc, have decided not to proceed with the application. The key argument leading to this decision appears to stem from the consensus among the stakeholders regarding the wayleave's relevance or necessity for the intended project. The DPEA has stated that it will take no further action in this matter, effectively closing the case. In conclusion, the DPEA has formally acknowledged the withdrawal of the wayleave application and has indicated that no further proceedings will occur. Stakeholders have been advised to reach out with any queries they may have regarding this decision.

Allowed

Appeal AllowedSelborne

SDNP/25/04098/CND

Albury Dairy, Selborne, GU33 6BX

The appeal decision concerns a request by Dr. William Selborne of the Blackmoor Estate to modify conditions attached to a previous planning permission for the change of use of an agricultural building to Class B8 storage at Albury Dairy, Honey Lane, Selborne, within the South Downs National Park. The appeal was prompted by the South Downs National Park Authority's failure to decide on the application within the prescribed period. The main issues revolved around the impact of proposed changes to operating hours and the removal of specific conditions aimed at protecting the living conditions of nearby residents and the tranquillity of the National Park. The appellant sought to extend operating hours and remove conditions related to noise control, including the use of white noise reversing alarms, the requirement for electric plant, noise level restrictions, and limits on HGV movements. The Inspector concluded that while some conditions could be relaxed, particularly regarding the use of electric plant, others were necessary to mitigate noise and disturbance. The proposed extension of operating hours was deemed acceptable, as it would not significantly impact local amenity. However, conditions regarding reversing alarms, noise levels, and HGV movements were retained to ensure protection against potential disturbances. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting permission for the change of use with a variation to condition 4 (operating hours) and the removal of condition 6 (electric plant requirement), while maintaining conditions 5, 7, and 8 to safeguard local amenity and tranquillity.

Dismissed

Appeal DismissedManchester

144365/AO/2025

Arndale Centre, Manchester, M4 3AB

The appeal decision relates to an application by Xrafit 2 Limited for express consent to display a high-level internally illuminated sign at the Arndale Centre, Manchester, which was refused by Manchester City Council. The appeal was made under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007, focusing solely on the proposed illuminated sign, as other signage elements were granted consent. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed sign on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, particularly concerning the St Ann’s Conservation Area and the nearby Grade II listed Royal Exchange. The Inspector noted that the conservation area's character is defined by its architectural significance and the relationship between buildings, rather than uniformity in signage. The Inspector's reasoning emphasized that the proposed sign, due to its bright green illumination and elevated position, would disrupt the established visual hierarchy of the area, drawing undue attention away from the ground-level commercial activities. It would contribute to visual clutter alongside existing advertisements, detracting from the visual amenity and the setting of the Royal Exchange, which is appreciated for its classical design. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, concluding that the proposed advertisement would have an unacceptable harmful effect on visual amenity, despite considering relevant planning policies. The decision was made on 18 September 2026, following a site visit on 8 April 2026.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissedthe UK

250347

1 Kingswood Close, NE35 9LG

The appeal decision letter concerns the proposed construction of a two-storey, three-bedroom dwelling at 1 Kingswood Close, Boldon Colliery, which was refused by South Tyneside Council. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed development on highway safety, particularly regarding a new vehicular access onto Cotswold Lane. The Inspector noted that while the revised parking and turning arrangements aimed to mitigate safety concerns, the introduction of a residential access on a local distributor road would increase vehicle interactions in an already complex area. The presence of nearby traffic features, such as a zebra crossing and bus stops, heightened the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not align with the principles outlined in the Manual for Streets, as the context of Cotswold Lane did not support a transition to a lower-speed, street-based environment. Despite acknowledging the modest benefits of adding a dwelling to the housing supply, the Inspector determined that these advantages were significantly outweighed by the adverse effects on highway safety. The proposal was found to conflict with Policy 47 of the South Tyneside Local Plan and national policies TR4 and TR6 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with the Inspector concluding that the development would not provide a safe and suitable access for all highway users, thus failing to comply with relevant policies.

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.

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.