167,859 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

PlanIt Consulting
PlanIt Consulting
Planning Geek
Planning Geek
HC Planning
HC Planning
Planning Potential
Planning Potential
CBRE
CBRE
Croydon Council
Croydon Council
Redbridge Council
Redbridge Council
Lambeth Council
Lambeth Council
Runnymede Council
Runnymede Council
PlanIt Consulting
PlanIt Consulting
Planning Geek
Planning Geek
HC Planning
HC Planning
Planning Potential
Planning Potential
CBRE
CBRE
Croydon Council
Croydon Council
Redbridge Council
Redbridge Council
Lambeth Council
Lambeth Council
Runnymede Council
Runnymede Council

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.

Planning appeal — Edinburgh

CLUD-230-2376

Pf1, Edinburgh, EH3 9JZ

The appeal decision letter pertains to a Certificate of Lawful Use and Development (CLUD) for the property located at PF1 10 Drumdryan Street, Edinburgh. The appeal was submitted by Ms. R Bodnarova but was deemed out of time by the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). The main issue addressed in the letter is the timeliness of the appeal submission. According to the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, appeals must be submitted within three months of the decision notice from the planning authority, in this case, the City of Edinburgh Council. The appeal was received on 17 August 2026, which exceeded the stipulated timeframe. The key argument presented by the DPEA is that they have no authority to accept late appeals, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the delay. The Reporter's reasoning is straightforward: adherence to procedural deadlines is critical in the planning process, and the DPEA is bound by regulations that do not allow for exceptions to this rule. As a result, the final decision is that the appeal is not accepted due to its late submission. The letter concludes with a note that a copy will be sent to the planning authority for their information, reinforcing the procedural transparency of the decision-making process.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — BURTON-ON-TRENT

APP/B3410/C/25/3376066

A Core Pole Fitness Centre, BURTON-ON-TRENT, DE14 1JE

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by East Staffordshire Borough Council regarding the installation of a metal roller-shutter door at 171 High Street, Burton upon Trent. The notice, issued on 4 July 2025, required the removal of the door and restoration of the building to its prior condition within two months. The appeal was made by Mrs. Susan Bond under grounds (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ground (f) argued that the steps required by the notice exceeded what was necessary to remedy the breach. The Inspector concluded that the removal of the door and associated parts was essential to achieve compliance and that any lesser steps would not suffice, thus dismissing this ground. Ground (g) contended that the compliance period was too short. The Inspector found that two months was adequate for the removal and repair work, noting that the appellant had previously suggested delaying enforcement pending a planning application, which had not been submitted. The Inspector determined that there was no justification for extending the compliance period given the ongoing harm from the unauthorized installation. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld, with a minor correction made to the wording of the breach from "doors" to "door." The Inspector emphasized the necessity of compliance to remedy the breach of planning control.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — the UK

APP/W2465/C/25/3375592

337 Narborough Road, LE3 2RD

The planning appeal decision concerns enforcement notices issued by Leicester City Council against Mr. Baljinder Singh and Mrs. Jagdeep Kaur for the unauthorized construction of a single-storey porch extension at 337 Narborough Road, Leicester. The enforcement notice, issued on October 9, 2025, required the demolition of the porch and removal of all related items within three months. The main issue on appeal was whether the requirements of the enforcement notice were excessive. The Inspector noted that the porch extension violated local heritage regulations due to its location within a designated area that restricts such developments. The appellants argued for a modification of the porch rather than complete removal, citing a lack of awareness regarding the heritage status at the time of construction. However, the Inspector found that the proposed modifications lacked detailed plans and would not adequately remedy the breach, as they would leave parts of the unauthorized structure intact. The Inspector emphasized that the enforcement notice's requirements were necessary to restore the site to its original condition and were not excessive or disproportionate. The appeals were ultimately dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld, reaffirming the necessity of compliance with planning regulations in heritage areas. The Inspector concluded that no acceptable alternatives to the notice's requirements had been presented, and the appellants were encouraged to explore potential modifications through a separate planning application process.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/W2465/C/25/3375206

88 Headland Road, LE5 6AD

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals (APP/W2465/C/25/3375206 and APP/W2465/C/25/3375207) made by Mr. Kamran Khan and Mrs. Maria Nawaz against an enforcement notice issued by Leicester City Council regarding unauthorized building works at 88 Headland Road, Leicester. The enforcement notice, issued on 30 September 2025, alleged the construction of a single-storey front extension and canopy, as well as a rear garage extension without planning permission. The Inspector identified the main issues as the visual impact of the front works on the property and surrounding area, and the effect of the rear extension on the residential amenity of the adjacent property at no. 90. The Inspector found that the front cladding, made of stone-like tiles, was incongruous and detracted from the character of the area, which is predominantly brick-built. The front alterations were deemed dominant and harmful to the street scene. Regarding the rear extension, the Inspector concluded that it was visually intrusive and overbearing, negatively impacting the amenity of no. 90, particularly due to its height and proximity to the boundary. The appellants' claims of immunity from enforcement action based on the age of the rear extension were dismissed, as the evidence indicated significant enlargement within the relevant timeframe. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, the enforcement notice upheld with minor corrections, and planning permission was refused for the unauthorized works. No conditions were proposed to mitigate the identified harms.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — LEEDS

3376890

5A Fire Station Houses, LEEDS, LS9 6NL

The appeal decision letter concerns an enforcement notice (EN) issued by Leeds City Council against Mr. Juris Vilumsons for the alleged unauthorized erection of a dwellinghouse at 5A Fire Station Houses, Gipton. The EN required the demolition of the dwelling and the removal of debris, with compliance periods set at 9 and 10 months. The main issues revolved around the clarity and validity of the EN. The Inspector noted that the EN failed to specify how the constructed dwelling deviated from the planning permission granted in January 2023, which led to confusion regarding the alleged breach. The Council's reasoning cited visual amenity impacts and harm to neighboring properties but lacked precision in detailing how the dwelling was detrimental. Furthermore, the EN included references to boundary treatments that were not part of the alleged breach, adding to the ambiguity. The Inspector highlighted that the Council's subsequent clarifications introduced new reasons for the enforcement that were not included in the original EN, potentially causing injustice to the appellant. Additionally, the EN was deemed invalid as it was not served on the owner/occupier of the adjacent property, which could lead to legal complications. Ultimately, the Inspector quashed the EN, concluding that it did not provide sufficient clarity regarding the breach of planning control, compliance steps, or the land involved. As a result, the appeal on various grounds and the deemed application for planning permission were not considered.

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.

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
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.