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.

164,197 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.

Planning appeal — Mynydd ddu

CAS-04775-P8X3F1

Graig Goch Ganol, Mynydd ddu, CH74BR

The planning appeal decision letter from Conwy County Borough Council outlines the procedures for handling feedback, complaints, and challenges related to planning and environmental decisions. The main issues addressed include the appeal process, the handling of complaints, and the conditions under which decisions can be challenged. Key arguments presented in the letter emphasize the importance of clear communication and the impartial investigation of complaints. The Quality Team is responsible for addressing feedback and ensuring that all comments are considered, with a commitment to respond within 20 working days. The letter clarifies the definitions of appeal outcomes, such as "Allowed" (planning permission granted) and "Dismissed" (permission denied). The Inspector's reasoning is based on the need for objectivity in decision-making, ensuring that local opinions are weighed against planning policies and evidence. The letter also highlights the limitations of the appeal process, stating that decisions cannot be revisited unless there is a legal error. The final decision reiterates that complaints about the appeal process or decisions must be directed to the Quality Assurance Team, which will conduct an independent investigation. If a mistake is found, the team will apologize and take corrective action. The letter also outlines the process for challenging decisions in the High Court, emphasizing that challenges must be based on legal grounds rather than personal disagreement with the outcome. Overall, the letter serves as a comprehensive guide for stakeholders on how to engage with the planning appeal system, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and the importance of adhering to established procedures.

Planning appeal — Shrewsbury

CAS-05004-R6H4Q9

17 Pool Orchard, Shrewsbury, SY5 9FG

The appeal decision concerns a planning application made by Mr. Peter Humphries for the modification of a fence and the creation of a dropped kerb to facilitate parking of a motorhome at 17 Pool Orchard, Crew Green, Shrewsbury. Powys County Council refused the application, prompting the appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed development on highway safety. The Inspector noted that while the development introduces an additional access point, the modifications were minimal, and the turning head would remain unchanged, preserving its function for vehicle manoeuvring. The Inspector assessed that the anticipated increase in vehicle movements would be modest and would not significantly compromise highway safety, given the low traffic levels and speeds in the area. The Inspector also addressed concerns regarding the long-term integrity of the estate layout and potential future developments, concluding that these concerns were not substantial enough to affect the decision. The appeal was allowed, granting planning permission subject to conditions that require adherence to the approved plans and the submission of a biodiversity enhancement scheme within three months. In conclusion, the Inspector found that the development complied with local planning policies regarding highway safety and did not conflict with broader planning principles. The decision reflects a commitment to sustainable development as outlined in the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Livingston

ENA-400-2066

99 Oldwood Place, Livingston, EH54 6US

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by West Lothian Council regarding the alleged unauthorized enclosure of land and change of use from open/woodland space to private garden at 99 Oldwood Place, Livingston. The appellants, Mr. Grant Ross and Mrs. Helen Gillian Ross, contested the enforcement notice on multiple grounds, particularly focusing on the failure to serve the notice to the rightful landowner, Rooa Alalwany, which they argued resulted in substantial prejudice. The Reporter, Jane Smith, determined that the enforcement notice was invalid due to improper service. The evidence indicated that the land in question was not owned by the appellants but had changed ownership to Alalwany prior to the issuance of the notice. The Reporter highlighted that the failure to serve the notice to the owner deprived them of the opportunity to appeal, thereby violating their rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the appeal succeeded on the grounds of improper service, the Reporter did not consider the other arguments raised. The decision quashed the enforcement notice, allowing the appellants to avoid compliance with its requirements. The Reporter noted that the council could issue a new enforcement notice if deemed necessary, with the right for any affected party to appeal to the Scottish Ministers.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Livingston

ENA-400-2067

98 Oldwood Place, Livingston, EH54 6US

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by West Lothian Council regarding an alleged breach of planning control at 98 Oldwood Place, Eliburn, where land was enclosed and used as private garden ground. The appeal was lodged by Mr. James Boyle and Mrs. Sharon Ann Lillian Boyle, contesting the enforcement notice on multiple grounds, including improper service of the notice. The main issues identified by the Reporter included whether the enforcement notice was valid due to the alleged failure to serve it on all relevant parties, particularly the landowner Rooa Alalwany, and whether any substantial prejudice resulted from this failure. The appellants argued that the lack of service denied the landowner and another occupant, Logan Boyle, the opportunity to appeal, thereby infringing their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Reporter found that while Logan Boyle was not substantially prejudiced due to shared familial ties with other served occupants, the failure to serve Rooa Alalwany, the registered landowner, constituted a significant oversight. The Reporter noted that the enforcement notice was invalid as it did not comply with statutory service requirements, which could prevent the landowner from appealing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the enforcement notice dated 19 February 2026 was quashed. The Reporter concluded that the council could issue a new enforcement notice if deemed necessary, allowing for proper service to all interested parties.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/W4223/C/25/3372628

97 Green Lane, OL8 3BB

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council against Mr. Ijaz Ahmed for unauthorized developments at 97 Green Lane, Oldham. The notice alleged two breaches of planning control: the construction of a front porch exceeding 3 square meters, which does not qualify as permitted development, and a two-storey side extension that does not comply with the approved planning permission (HOU/352143/23) due to its alignment with the front elevation of the dwelling. The main issues addressed by the Inspector were whether the developments constituted good design and whether they preserved the character of the Garden Suburbs Conservation Area (CA). The Inspector found that the unauthorized two-storey side extension disrupted the symmetry and design consistency of the semi-detached properties, causing material harm to the CA's significance. The front porch was also deemed incongruous with the surrounding architecture. Although the Inspector acknowledged the existence of a valid planning permission for a more suitable extension, the proposed developments did not align with this approval. The appeal was dismissed on grounds (a) and (f), with the Inspector concluding that the requirements of the enforcement notice were necessary and not excessive. However, the appeal on ground (g) succeeded, resulting in a variation of the compliance period from five to eight months to allow the appellant adequate time to make necessary arrangements. In summary, the enforcement notice was upheld with a corrected compliance period, and planning permission for the unauthorized developments was refused.

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

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.