176,871 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 — the UK

S.26/0523/HHOLD

5C Weavers Close, GL11 4LR

The planning appeal decision concerns a proposal by Mr. Roy Smith for a walkway and stairs leading to a garden from the first floor of his dwelling at 5C Weavers Close, Dursley, which was refused by Stroud District Council. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, as well as its effect on the living conditions of neighboring occupiers concerning overlooking and privacy. The Inspector found that the proposed walkway, which would extend 1.5 meters from the rear elevation, would be an unduly bulky addition that detracted from the dwelling's appearance. The staircase was deemed intrusive and incongruous, disrupting the simple design of the rear elevation. While the canopy was considered to harmonize with the existing architecture, its combination with the walkway and staircase resulted in an awkward overall appearance that diminished the character of the host dwelling. Regarding the impact on neighboring properties, the Inspector acknowledged that while some overlooking already existed, the proposed walkway could lead to significant overlooking of the adjacent property at No. 5, particularly if used as a balcony. This would result in a material loss of privacy for the occupants of No. 5, conflicting with local planning policies. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the proposed development failed to comply with local and national planning policies, citing a lack of high-quality design and unacceptable levels of privacy loss. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no conditions were imposed.

Planning appeal — DG

WAY-310-3 (Wayleave)

Land At Auchrae Forest, DG

The Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) issued a decision regarding a wayleave application for land at Auchrae Forest, Carspairn, Castle Douglas, referenced as WAY-310-3. The planning authority involved was North Ayrshire Council. The main issue at hand was the wayleave application, which is a legal right to use land for specific purposes. However, the applicant, Czernin-Kinsky Scottish Company Limited, has since withdrawn the application. Key arguments surrounding the case were not detailed in the correspondence, as the withdrawal of the application effectively negated the need for further deliberation or consideration of the merits of the proposal. The Reporter's reasoning was straightforward; with the application withdrawn, there were no grounds for the DPEA to proceed with any further action or assessment. As a result of the withdrawal, the DPEA confirmed that it would take no further action regarding the matter. The decision emphasizes the procedural aspect of planning applications, highlighting that the withdrawal of an application leads to the cessation of the planning process. No conditions were imposed, as the case was closed upon the withdrawal of the application. The correspondence concluded with an invitation for any queries related to the matter.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — LONDON

PA26/0790

PAVEMENT OUTSIDE NO, LONDON, SW14 7NX

The planning appeal decision concerns two applications by Mr. Nathan Still for the installation of a multifunctional communication hub outside Tesco Express on Upper Richmond Road West, East Sheen. Appeal A (Ref 6014784) sought planning permission, while Appeal B (Ref 6014782) requested express consent for an advertisement display. Both appeals were dismissed by Inspector G Powys Jones. The main issues identified were the impact of the proposed hub on pedestrian comfort and safety, as well as its effect on visual amenity. The Inspector noted that the hub would significantly narrow the footway, reducing the available space for pedestrians to approximately 2.5m, which could lead to congestion, particularly during peak shopping times. Although the Inspector acknowledged potential inconvenience, he concluded that public safety would not be compromised. Additionally, the proposal was criticized for contributing to visual clutter in an area already populated with street furniture and advertisements. The Inspector referenced Transport for London’s guidelines on pedestrian comfort, emphasizing the need for unobstructed pathways, which the proposal failed to meet. The development was found to conflict with policy 17 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan, which aims to promote high-quality environments and enhance the public realm. In conclusion, the Inspector dismissed both appeals, citing unacceptable levels of pedestrian inconvenience and visual harm to the amenity of the area, with no other considerations outweighing these findings.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — London

261453FUL

19 Woodville Road, London, W5 2SE

The appeal decision pertains to a planning application for 19 Woodville Road, Ealing, which was refused by the London Borough of Ealing. The proposed development includes a single-storey infill extension with a green roof, replacement of an existing rear extension and roof terrace, alterations to fenestration, a loft conversion with a flat-roof dormer, and the installation of new rooflights. The main issue identified in the appeal was the impact of the proposed development on the privacy of the residents at 21 Woodville Road, particularly concerning the use of the flat roof as a terrace. The Inspector noted that the primary concern from the Council was related to the potential overlooking from the proposed roof terrace. However, the Inspector found that the existing terrace already allowed for significant overlooking into the neighboring property, and the proposed changes would not exacerbate this situation. The new design included larger rooflights, which would reduce the usable area of the terrace, and the infill extension would provide additional screening from views into the neighboring garden and windows. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not harm the privacy of the residents at 21 Woodville Road, aligning with relevant policies aimed at protecting neighboring amenities. The appeal was allowed, granting planning permission subject to conditions. These include a requirement to commence development within three years, adherence to approved plans, matching materials for external surfaces, and implementation of approved screening proposals before the roof terrace can be used for leisure purposes. No objections were raised from the public during the consultation process, further supporting the Inspector's decision.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — LONDON

PA26/0785

PAVEMENT OUTSIDE NO, LONDON, SW14 7JE

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals by Mr. Nathan Still regarding the installation of a multifunctional communication hub outside 270-274 Upper Richmond Road West, East Sheen, SW14 7JE. Appeal A (Ref 6014785) sought planning permission, while Appeal B (Ref 6014783) sought express consent for an advertisement display. Both appeals were dismissed. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the proposals' impact on pedestrian comfort and safety, and their effect on visual amenity. The Inspector noted that the site is located within a busy shopping area, where pedestrian footfall was moderate. Although the proposed structure would occupy part of the footway, the Inspector found that it would not significantly impede pedestrian movement or public safety, even during peak shopping times. However, the Inspector concluded that the installation would contribute to visual congestion and clutter, exacerbating existing issues in the area. This was deemed contrary to the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan, which emphasizes the need for high-quality environments and enhancement of the public realm. Despite finding no significant public safety concerns, the detrimental impact on visual amenity was sufficient to justify dismissing both appeals. In summary, while pedestrian safety and comfort were upheld, the adverse effects on the visual environment led to the rejection of the proposals. No additional conditions were specified in the decision.

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.