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.

172,784 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.

Planning appeal — the UK

GATE-100-2 (Gatecheck Review)

Aberdeen City Council

The planning appeal decision letter from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division addresses the sufficiency of the Aberdeen City Evidence Report for the preparation of its Local Development Plan (LDP). The main issues revolved around housing and infrastructure, particularly transport, education, and healthcare, which were previously deemed insufficient. The Reporter, Claire Milne, conducted a reassessment following the submission of a revised report on September 21, 2026. Key arguments included the need for an updated Local Housing Land Requirement (LHLR) reflecting the planning authority's position, which was set at 10,560 units—significantly higher than the Minimum Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) of 7,000 units. The planning authority justified this increase based on demographic trends, economic ambitions, and historical housing delivery data. The evidence report also highlighted challenges such as social housing needs, school capacity, and healthcare investment. The Reporter found that the revised evidence report adequately addressed previous recommendations, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the local development plan's performance and implications for the emerging plan. While a few minor issues remained, they did not indicate overall insufficiency. The final decision deemed the evidence report sufficient for the planning authority to proceed with the LDP preparation, with the expectation that ongoing assessments of housing delivery and infrastructure capacity would continue. Conditions for future work included completing a Housing Land Audit and a Brownfield Urban Capacity Study to inform the proposed plan.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — the UK

26/00309/FUL

Land To The Rear Of 82 St James Way, DA14 5HF

The appeal decision concerns the proposal by Alpine Freehold Ltd for a two-storey rear extension intended for Class E(c) office use and ancillary storage at land behind 82 St James Way, Sidcup. The London Borough of Bexley had previously refused the application, prompting the appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. The Inspector noted that the site is situated within a service yard, characterized by various structures and parking areas, and that the proposed extension would not visually dominate the area despite its larger footprint. The design, featuring a flat roof and matching brickwork, was deemed compatible with the existing commercial unit and the surrounding environment. Key arguments from the Council included concerns about the development's legibility and its location outside the designated Neighbourhood Centre. However, the Inspector reasoned that the office use would not necessitate a street-facing frontage and would integrate well with the existing uses in the service yard. The proposal was also found not to adversely affect the adjacent High Beeches Conservation Area or the living conditions of nearby residents. Ultimately, the Inspector allowed the appeal, granting planning permission subject to conditions that include a time limit for commencement, adherence to approved plans, use of specified materials, and the submission of a Construction Management and Logistics Plan to mitigate construction impacts. The decision underscores the proposal's alignment with local planning policies and the absence of material considerations warranting a different outcome.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — the UK

P26/01260/HH

68 Lilliput Avenue, BS37 6HX

The appeal decision concerns a planning application for a two-storey side extension and a single-storey front extension at 68 Lilliput Avenue, Chipping Sodbury, which was refused by South Gloucestershire Council. The main issue addressed by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the adjacent property at No. 66 Lilliput Avenue, specifically regarding outlook, daylight, and sunlight. The Inspector evaluated the proposal against the 25-degree and 45-degree tests outlined in the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (HDG). It was determined that the windows of No. 66, particularly those at ground level, would not be significantly affected due to their distance from the shared boundary. Although the proposal did not fully comply with the 45-degree test concerning first-floor windows, the Inspector concluded that the living conditions would not be adversely impacted. The positioning of the proposed extension, set back from the boundary and the orientation of No. 66, further mitigated potential negative effects on daylight and sunlight. Consequently, the Inspector found that the development would not harm the living conditions of the neighboring property and would comply with relevant local planning policies. The appeal was allowed, granting planning permission subject to conditions that include a three-year commencement period, adherence to specified plans, and the use of matching external materials to maintain the character of the area. An application for costs by the appellants against the Council will be addressed separately.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

26/00869/ADV

249 - 251 Green Street Forest Gate, E7 8LJ

The appeal decision concerns the refusal of express consent for two externally illuminated LED displays at 249-251 Green Street, Forest Gate, Newham, made by Mr. D Mohindra of Daminis Ltd. The main issues evaluated were the impact of the proposed advertisements on local amenity and public safety. In terms of amenity, the Inspector noted that the site is located in a busy commercial area where signage is common. However, the proposed displays would be significantly larger than the existing ground-floor signage, interrupting the architectural integrity of the building and obscuring notable features of its Victorian facade. The Inspector concluded that the scale and positioning of the advertisements would result in visual dominance and clutter, detracting from the character of the area, and thus would cause unacceptable harm to local amenity. Regarding public safety, the Inspector acknowledged concerns about potential distractions for drivers due to the proximity of the displays to busy junctions. However, it was determined that with appropriate operational controls—such as restrictions on luminance and prohibiting animated content—the advertisements would not pose an unacceptable risk to highway users. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to the unacceptable impact on amenity, despite finding no adverse effects on public safety. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the character of the area in line with relevant planning policies.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Swadlincote

DMOT/2025/1514

813, Swadlincote, DE11 0DN

The appeal decision concerns an application by Khalid Mohammed for the approval of details related to a noise management scheme for a redeveloped petrol station at Midway Save, South Derbyshire. The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 following the refusal of the application by South Derbyshire District Council on 30 March 2026. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether the submitted details adequately addressed the noise and disturbance impacts of a newly installed jet wash on neighboring residential properties, as required by Condition 6 of the original planning permission. The Inspector noted that while the jet wash is located near residential areas, the submitted Noise Management Plan proposed an acoustic fence to mitigate noise. However, the assessment relied on an unrealistic assumption regarding the frequency of jet wash usage, which underestimated its potential impact on residents. The Inspector found that the proposed acoustic fencing would not sufficiently reduce noise levels, and the assessment did not comprehensively evaluate the effects on living conditions. The Council's Environmental Health Officer provided a more realistic assessment, which the Inspector favored. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the details submitted did not meet the requirements of Condition 6, leading to a dismissal of the appeal. The decision reinforces the importance of adequately addressing noise impacts in planning applications, particularly in residential contexts. The appeal was dismissed, and no specific conditions were imposed beyond the existing planning permission.

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.

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.