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.

172,874 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.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Birmingham

2026/01965/PA

635 Kingsbury Road, Birmingham, B24 9PP

The appeal decision concerns the proposed display of a non-illuminated static PVC banner advertisement at 635 Kingsbury Road, Birmingham, which was initially refused by Birmingham City Council. The appeal, submitted by Mr. Gabi Fisher, was assessed under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the advertisement on amenity, as public safety was not contested by the Council. The site is located in a Core Employment Area, characterized by industrial and commercial premises, with residential properties situated across a dual carriageway. The Inspector noted that the area already features a variety of advertisements, contributing to an urban environment. During the site visit, the Inspector observed that while the proposed banner is large, it would be proportionate to the building's façade and would not obscure significant architectural features. The advertisement's visibility would be consistent with the existing urban context, and thus, it would not detract from the area's visual amenity. The Inspector found no conflict with Policy DM7 of the Development Management in Birmingham, which emphasizes high-quality design and compatibility with the surroundings. The appeal was allowed, granting express consent for 18 months, subject to five standard conditions outlined in the Regulations. The Inspector concluded that the advertisement would not harm amenity and recommended approval based on the evidence presented.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

261882FUL

9 Brentvale Avenue, UB1 3ER

The appeal decision concerns the conversion of a single dwelling at 9 Brentvale Avenue, Southall, into two self-contained units, which was refused by the London Borough of Ealing. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether the proposed Flat 2 would provide satisfactory living conditions, particularly regarding space and outdoor amenity. The Inspector noted that while the total Gross Internal Area of the dwelling met acceptable standards, the kitchen and living areas fell short of the required space. Specifically, Flat 2 was found to have approximately 27.1 square meters of combined living, kitchen, and dining space, which was below the minimum standard of 29 square meters for a three-bedroom unit. Additionally, the kitchen's limited occupiable area, compounded by inadequate space for appliances, was deemed insufficient for the expected occupancy of up to five people. Regarding outdoor amenity space, the proposal did not provide adequate private outdoor space, as required by the Mayor’s Standards. The appellant suggested that nearby Brent Meadow could serve as outdoor space; however, the Inspector emphasized that private outdoor space is essential for residential units, and the proximity to public space did not meet this requirement. The Inspector dismissed the appeal, concluding that the development failed to comply with relevant policies and standards, particularly regarding living conditions and outdoor amenity space. The Inspector also noted that the potential benefits of the development did not outweigh the adverse effects, leading to the final decision to dismiss the appeal.

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 — Sherington

PLN/2025/2569

Arbour House, Sherington, MK16 9PB

The planning appeal decision concerns the proposed erection of a single-storey, two-bedroom dwelling at Arbour House, Church Road, Sherington, Newport Pagnell, which was initially refused by Milton Keynes City Council. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the development on the living conditions of neighboring properties, particularly regarding privacy, outlook, and sunlight, and the effect on the setting of the nearby listed building, Arbour House. In assessing living conditions, the Inspector noted that while the proposed dwelling would be approximately 16-17.3 meters from neighboring properties, the single-storey nature of the development and existing boundary treatments would mitigate concerns regarding privacy and outlook. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby occupants, complying with Policy D5 of the Plan:MK. Regarding the setting of the listed building, the Inspector acknowledged the historical context but determined that the appeal site had evolved into a residential area, diminishing its significance as part of Arbour House's curtilage. The Inspector found that the proposed development would not harm the setting of the listed building, aligning with Policies HE1 and HE4 of the Framework. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting planning permission for the proposed development, subject to conditions outlined in the decision. The Inspector also noted that concerns about design and character were not raised by the Council as reasons for refusal, and other matters such as ecological impacts were adequately addressed.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — MIDDLETON

24/01260/FUL

426 -428, MIDDLETON, M24 2QW

The planning appeal decision concerns the proposed change of use of a vacant building at 426-428 Briarmede, Rochdale Road, Middleton, from its previous operation as a care home to student accommodation, accommodating up to 16 students. The appeal was made by Mr. G.H. Adeel on behalf of Al Sadiq Academy against the refusal by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. The Inspector identified two main issues: the suitability of the site for student accommodation according to the local development plan, and the potential impact on the character of the area and the living conditions of neighboring residents due to noise and disturbance. The Inspector noted a lack of evidence supporting a local need for additional student accommodation, despite the proximity of educational institutions. The Council's data indicated limited demand in the area, particularly as existing universities do not provide residential facilities. Regarding the impact on neighbors, although the proposal would not significantly alter the visual character of the area, the anticipated increase in activity from 16 residents would likely lead to noise disturbances, particularly during evenings. The Inspector found that proposed management measures were insufficient to mitigate these impacts. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to the proposal's conflict with local policies aimed at preserving living conditions for residents, despite some benefits such as reusing a vacant building and potential economic gains. The Inspector concluded that the adverse effects outweighed the benefits, leading to the decision to refuse 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.