172,221 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.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Goxhill

PA/2025/532

Land adjacent to Hawthorne Gardens, Goxhill, DN19 7UN

The appeal decision concerns a planning application by Keigar Homes Ltd for the erection of 15 dwellings, public open space, and community changing rooms in Goxhill, which North Lincolnshire Council had previously refused based on drainage concerns. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether adequate surface and foul drainage could be provided without causing pollution, health risks, or flooding. The Inspector noted that the development would extend an already approved housing project and included provisions for community facilities. The refusal was primarily due to Anglian Water's objection regarding existing drainage capacity, which they indicated would not be available until 2030. However, the Lead Local Flood Authority supported the proposal with conditions, and the Inspector found that a drainage strategy could be implemented to allow construction to proceed while addressing the foul drainage issue. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would provide much-needed housing in an area lacking a five-year housing supply and would contribute positively to local amenities. The appeal was allowed, granting planning permission subject to conditions that ensure compliance with drainage strategies and other planning requirements. Conditions attached to the decision included standard time limits, adherence to approved plans, and various pre-commencement conditions related to construction management, drainage strategies, and landscaping. The Inspector emphasized that these conditions were necessary to mitigate potential impacts on the surrounding area and ensure compliance with planning policies.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Sowerby Bridge

25/01069/FUL

Hollin House, Sowerby Bridge, HX6 4LH

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by C & G Morse for a single-storey agricultural storage building at Hollin House, Ripponden, which was initially refused by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. The Inspector, J Smith MRTPI, conducted a site visit on 21 October 2026 and issued the decision on 23 October 2026, allowing the appeal. The main issues evaluated were whether the development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, its impact on the character and appearance of the Blackwood Common Landscape Character Area, and its effects on the living conditions of neighboring residents regarding noise and odor. The Inspector determined that the proposed building would be used for agricultural purposes, specifically for storing hay, feed, and machinery, which aligns with Green Belt policies that permit agricultural buildings. Despite the absence of livestock at the time of the site visit, the Inspector noted that establishing storage facilities prior to introducing livestock is reasonable. Regarding the character and appearance, the Inspector acknowledged that while the proposed timber cladding contrasts with the local stone architecture, this could be mitigated through a condition requiring approval of external materials. The development's modest size and positioning would not significantly detract from the landscape. On living conditions, the Inspector concluded that noise from machinery and potential odors would be minimal, especially since the building would not house livestock. A condition restricting the building's use to storage only was deemed necessary to protect neighbors' amenity. The appeal was allowed, with conditions including time limits, adherence to approved plans, submission of material details, and restrictions on the building's use.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Tanworth-in-Arden

26/00255/FUL

Chatsworth House, Tanworth-in-Arden, B94 5DP

The appeal decision concerns the proposed change of use of agricultural land to a domestic garden at Chatsworth House, Broad Lane, Wood End, Solihull, which was refused by Stratford-on-Avon District Council. The Inspector, D Marley, identified four main issues: whether the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, its impact on the character and appearance of the area, its suitability under relevant development plan policies, and whether any harm from inappropriateness could be outweighed by other considerations. The Inspector concluded that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as it did not fall within the exceptions outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the Core Strategy. The Inspector reasoned that while some activities associated with gardens could be considered outdoor recreation, the primary use of a garden is residential, which does not align with the exceptions for Green Belt development. The Inspector noted contrasting decisions from other cases but ultimately found that the appeal did not meet the criteria for outdoor recreation. In terms of character and appearance, the Inspector found that the site’s enclosed nature and limited visibility from public vantage points meant that the change of use would not harm the character of the area. The proposal was deemed to comply with relevant policies regarding landscape and character. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to the determination that the change of use constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, despite the lack of significant visual impact on the area. No specific conditions were imposed as the appeal was not granted.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Fittleworth

SDNP/26/01219/LIS

30C, Fittleworth, RH20 1ES

The planning appeal decision concerns two applications by Charlotte Williams for the property at 30C Coates Lane, Fittleworth, West Sussex, which were refused by the South Downs National Park Authority. Appeal A sought permission for a two-storey rear extension, while Appeal B sought listed building consent for the same works. Both appeals were dismissed. The main issues identified by the Inspector were whether the proposed development would preserve the Grade II listed building and its features of special architectural or historic interest, and whether it would enhance the character or appearance of the Coates Conservation Area (CA). The Inspector noted the CA's significance stems from its historic buildings and rural character, while the listed building's special interest is derived from its vernacular architecture and historic fabric. The Inspector acknowledged that the proposed extension would not detract from the CA's overall significance but raised concerns about the design's bulk and its impact on the historic form of the listed building. The extension would obscure significant architectural features and remove a characteristic chimney stack, resulting in moderate harm to the building's historic interest. Although the removal of a modern side extension was a positive aspect, it did not outweigh the harm caused by the proposed alterations. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the public benefits of the proposal were insufficient to outweigh the identified harm, leading to the dismissal of both appeals. The decision emphasized the importance of preserving the historic and architectural integrity of designated heritage assets in line with relevant planning policies.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Fittleworth

SDNP/26/01228/HOUS

30C, Fittleworth, RH20 1ES

The planning appeal decision concerns two applications by Charlotte Williams regarding the property at 30C Coates Lane, Fittleworth, West Sussex. Appeal A sought permission for a two-storey rear extension, while Appeal B sought listed building consent for the same works. Both appeals were dismissed by Inspector R Hall on 23 October 2026. The main issues identified were whether the proposed development would preserve the Grade II listed building and its features of special architectural or historic interest, as well as the character and appearance of the Coates Conservation Area. The Inspector noted that the significance of the Conservation Area is derived from its historic buildings and rural character, while the listed building's special interest stems from its vernacular architecture and historic fabric. The Inspector found that, although the proposed rear extension would not detract from the Conservation Area and would remove an unsympathetic modern addition, it would introduce considerable bulk that would not appear subservient to the historic building. This would obscure important architectural features and result in moderate harm to the listed building's character. The Inspector concluded that the public benefits of the proposal, primarily private in nature, did not outweigh the harm caused. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed due to conflicts with various local and national policies aimed at protecting the historic environment and cultural heritage. The Inspector emphasized that the proposal failed to preserve the special historic interest of the listed building, leading to the final decision against the appeals.

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.