171,671 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 Dismissed — LONDON

25/2354/F

6 Melling Street, LONDON, SE18 2EG

The appeal decision concerns the proposed development at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, Greenwich, which involved a single-storey rear extension, an L-shaped dormer extension, and a change of use from a single dwelling house (Class C3) to a six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO, Class C4). The appeal was made by Mr. Michael Hartman against the Royal Borough of Greenwich's refusal of planning permission. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed change of use on the living conditions of neighboring occupiers, particularly regarding noise and disturbance. The Inspector noted that while the property could be occupied by a family of more than six without planning control, the dynamics of six unrelated individuals could lead to increased comings and goings, which would be perceptible in the quiet residential area of Melling Street. The close proximity of the property to its neighbors exacerbated potential noise issues. The Inspector acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding the management plan and the potential for noise control through conditions. However, it was concluded that these measures would not sufficiently mitigate the cumulative noise and disturbance likely to arise from the proposed HMO use. Comparisons to other approved HMOs were deemed insufficient due to differing contexts. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, citing conflicts with relevant policies aimed at protecting living conditions. The decision emphasized that the limited benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the adverse effects on neighboring residents. Therefore, planning permission was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Turned Away

Appeal Turned Away — Bovingdon

26/00723/ROC

Greymantle, Bovingdon, HP3 0HF

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals (A Ref: 6011032 and B Ref: 6011849) made by Ben Sterling (Jumbly Investments Ltd) against Dacorum Borough Council's refusals to grant planning permission for developments at Greymantle, Hempstead Road, Bovingdon, Hertfordshire. **Main Issues:** The appeals sought to vary conditions attached to previous planning permissions related to alterations and extensions of the property, including a loft conversion and the conversion of a single dwelling into two semi-detached homes. The key conditions in dispute were related to compliance with approved plans and the provision of cycle storage. **Key Arguments:** In Appeal A, the appellant argued for a design amendment to a previously approved single dwelling scheme. However, the Inspector noted that a new permission for two dwellings had been implemented, fundamentally altering the nature of the development. In Appeal B, the appellant sought to vary conditions regarding design details and cycle parking, but the proposed cycle storage was to be located in garages that lacked planning permission. **Inspector's Reasoning:** The Inspector concluded that both appeals were invalid. For Appeal A, the proposed changes conflicted with the operative part of the original permission, as the implemented scheme was significantly different. For Appeal B, the proposed cycle parking within unapproved garages exceeded the scope of the original permission, thus failing to meet legal requirements established by case law. **Final Decision and Conditions:** The Inspector declined to determine both appeals, stating they were made on unsound bases. Consequently, no further action will be taken regarding these appeals. Applications for costs related to both appeals were noted but are subject to a separate decision.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Huddersfield

2025/62/93371/E

5 Dearnfield, Huddersfield, HD8 8NX

The appeal decision concerns a planning application by Mr. S Facey for a two-storey side extension and associated alterations at 5 Dearnfield, Upper Cumberworth, Huddersfield, which was initially refused by Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council. The main issue addressed by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector noted that the existing property is a detached two-storey dwelling situated on a spacious corner plot among a mix of housing styles. The proposed extensions would significantly widen the property's frontage but were deemed to be in keeping with the overall character of the area, particularly given the substantial alterations already made to neighboring properties. The Inspector emphasized that the extensions would not dominate the original dwelling and would maintain adequate spacing from boundaries, avoiding a "terracing" effect. Despite the Council's concerns regarding compliance with their Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), the Inspector found that the unique circumstances of the site justified a departure from strict adherence to the SPD guidelines. The design elements, including the use of flat roofs and matching materials, were considered appropriate and consistent with the character of the area. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area, allowing the appeal and granting planning permission subject to conditions: a three-year commencement period, adherence to approved plans, and matching external materials.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/W4705/C/25/3376540

6 Duckworth Lane, BD9 5EP

The appeal decision concerns a breach of planning control at 6 Duckworth Lane, Bradford, where the appellant, Mr. Dara Sharif, contested an enforcement notice issued by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The notice alleged an unauthorized change of use from a bank to a mixed hot food takeaway and restaurant, requiring cessation of the takeaway component within two months. The main issue was whether the mixed use constituted a material change of use requiring planning permission. The appellant argued that the takeaway aspect was incidental to the primary restaurant use, thus not constituting a material change. However, the Inspector noted that the hot food takeaway is classified as a sui generis use under the Use Classes Order, distinct from the restaurant use. The Inspector found that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient to demonstrate that the takeaway component was merely incidental. Observations from the Council and local residents indicated that the mixed use significantly impacted traffic and noise levels, further supporting the claim of a material change. The Inspector concluded that the mixed use constituted a breach of planning control and dismissed the appeal. The enforcement notice was upheld with corrections to clarify the nature of the breach and the requirements, specifically to cease the mixed use by ending the hot food takeaway component.

Split Decision

Appeal Split Decision — the UK

P2025/3222/LBC

30 Sekforde Street, EC1R 0HH

The appeal decision concerns the refusal of listed building consent by the London Borough of Islington for proposed works at 30 Sekforde Street, which included a fully reversible lining to existing brick vaults. The main issue was whether these works would preserve the significance of the Grade II Listed Building and its architectural features. The Inspector noted that the vaults are historically significant as former coal storage areas, contributing to the building's overall heritage. The proposed lining would obscure the historic brickwork and chutes, thereby diminishing the understanding of the building's significance. The Inspector expressed concerns that the waterproofing might not effectively address the underlying moisture issues, potentially exacerbating damage to the structure over time. The appeal was partially allowed, permitting the levelling and tiling of the vault floors, new flooring in the lightwell, and new timber doors, as these elements were deemed to preserve the building's significance. However, the proposal to line and waterproof the vaults was dismissed due to the potential harm it posed to the listed building's character. In conclusion, the Inspector emphasized the importance of conserving heritage assets and determined that the proposed works conflicted with relevant planning policies. The final decision allowed certain works while refusing the lining of the vaults, subject to conditions regarding the materials and methods used in the permitted works.

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.