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.

171,725 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.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Birmingam

2026/00128/PA

248 Wheelwright Rd, Birmingam, B24 8EH

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by Mr. Ali Kamran to change the use of a hair salon at 248 Wheelwright Road, Birmingham, to a hot food takeaway, including the installation of an extractor flue. The Birmingham City Council previously refused this application, leading to the appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the potential impact of the development on the living conditions of neighboring residents, particularly concerning noise and odour. The site is situated in a mixed-use area with commercial premises and residential flats nearby. The proposed extraction flue would be located at the rear of the building, but the Inspector noted a lack of detailed assessments regarding the noise and odour impacts on adjacent residential properties. Despite the appellant's suggestion to address these concerns through planning conditions, the Inspector found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures would adequately protect nearby residents from adverse effects. The Inspector emphasized the importance of establishing that the development would not cause harm before considering conditions, especially given local residents’ concerns about cumulative impacts from existing takeaways. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the proposal did not meet the requirements of relevant local policies aimed at ensuring sustainable development without unacceptable impacts on neighbor amenity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the proposed development was not granted permission.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Leeds

25/07167/FU

5 Robins Grove, Leeds, LS26 0LE

The appeal decision concerns a planning application by David Stewart for a two-storey side and front extension, and a single-storey front extension at 5 Robins Grove, Rothwell, Leeds. The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to Leeds City Council's failure to make a timely decision, which the Council indicated would have been a refusal. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Rothwell Conservation Area (CA). The Council acknowledged that the development would not significantly impact neighboring properties or highway safety but argued it would harm the character of the dwelling and the CA. The Inspector noted that the property is a semi-detached dwelling situated in a character area defined by its consistent architectural style and spacing. The proposed two-storey extension would disrupt the established rhythm of the row of properties and alter the roof form, which is inconsistent with the CA's characteristics. The Inspector emphasized that the proposal would harm the significance of the CA, a designated heritage asset, and that any private benefits from the development did not outweigh this harm. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and planning permission was refused, as the proposal did not comply with relevant policies aimed at preserving the historic environment. The Inspector concluded that the development would not meet the requirements of the Act or the development plan.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

PLN/2026/0265

1 Worth Court, MK109LU

The appeal decision letter concerns the refusal of planning permission by Milton Keynes Council for a change of use of 1 Worth Court to a 5-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The main issues identified by the Inspector were the suitability of the site for an HMO and the potential impact on highway safety due to parking provision. The Inspector found that the proposed development would lead to an overconcentration of HMOs in the area, exceeding the 35% threshold set by the Council's HMO Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The evidence indicated that the concentration of HMOs would rise to approximately 5%-11% above this threshold, conflicting with Policies D1 and HN7 of the Plan:MK. Furthermore, the Inspector concluded that the inclusion of one-bedroom flats in the HMO count was appropriate, affirming the Council's calculations regarding existing HMOs. On the issue of highway safety, the Inspector noted that the proposed development would not meet the required parking standards, necessitating 2.5 spaces while only providing one usable space. This would likely lead to increased on-street parking, compromising highway safety and contradicting Policies CT2 and CT10 of the Plan:MK. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, stating that the proposal conflicted with the development plan and that the material considerations did not warrant a different decision. No specific conditions were outlined in the decision.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — LONDON

25/2354/F

6 Melling Street, LONDON, SE18 2EG

The appeal decision concerns the proposed development at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, Greenwich, which involved a single-storey rear extension, an L-shaped dormer extension, and a change of use from a single dwelling house (Class C3) to a six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO, Class C4). The appeal was made by Mr. Michael Hartman against the Royal Borough of Greenwich's refusal of planning permission. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed change of use on the living conditions of neighboring occupiers, particularly regarding noise and disturbance. The Inspector noted that while the property could be occupied by a family of more than six without planning control, the dynamics of six unrelated individuals could lead to increased comings and goings, which would be perceptible in the quiet residential area of Melling Street. The close proximity of the property to its neighbors exacerbated potential noise issues. The Inspector acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding the management plan and the potential for noise control through conditions. However, it was concluded that these measures would not sufficiently mitigate the cumulative noise and disturbance likely to arise from the proposed HMO use. Comparisons to other approved HMOs were deemed insufficient due to differing contexts. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, citing conflicts with relevant policies aimed at protecting living conditions. The decision emphasized that the limited benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the adverse effects on neighboring residents. Therefore, planning permission was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/W4705/C/25/3376540

6 Duckworth Lane, BD9 5EP

The appeal decision concerns a breach of planning control at 6 Duckworth Lane, Bradford, where the appellant, Mr. Dara Sharif, contested an enforcement notice issued by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The notice alleged an unauthorized change of use from a bank to a mixed hot food takeaway and restaurant, requiring cessation of the takeaway component within two months. The main issue was whether the mixed use constituted a material change of use requiring planning permission. The appellant argued that the takeaway aspect was incidental to the primary restaurant use, thus not constituting a material change. However, the Inspector noted that the hot food takeaway is classified as a sui generis use under the Use Classes Order, distinct from the restaurant use. The Inspector found that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient to demonstrate that the takeaway component was merely incidental. Observations from the Council and local residents indicated that the mixed use significantly impacted traffic and noise levels, further supporting the claim of a material change. The Inspector concluded that the mixed use constituted a breach of planning control and dismissed the appeal. The enforcement notice was upheld with corrections to clarify the nature of the breach and the requirements, specifically to cease the mixed use by ending the hot food takeaway component.

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.