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.

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.

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 — 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.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — LONDON

PA26/0789

PAVEMENT OUTSIDE NO, LONDON, SW14 7NX

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals by Mr. Nathan Still against the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames regarding the installation of a multifunctional communication hub outside a Tesco Express on Upper Richmond Road West. Appeal A pertains to a refusal for planning permission, while Appeal B relates to a refusal for express consent for an advertisement display. The main issues identified in both appeals are the impact of the proposed structure on pedestrian comfort and safety, as well as its effect on visual amenity. The Inspector noted that the site is located in a busy shopping area where the proposed hub would significantly narrow the footway, allowing only approximately 2.5m for pedestrian passage. This reduction in space could lead to congestion, especially during peak shopping times, although the Inspector did not find sufficient evidence to suggest that public safety would be compromised. The Inspector referenced Transport for London’s guidance on pedestrian comfort, which recommends wider unobstructed footpaths. Additionally, the presence of existing street furniture contributed to a perception of visual clutter, which would be exacerbated by the proposed hub and advertisement. The Inspector concluded that the installation would result in unacceptable pedestrian inconvenience and would further harm the visual amenity of the area, conflicting with local planning policies aimed at maintaining high-quality environments. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, with the Inspector emphasizing that no other considerations outweighed the negative impacts identified.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — LONDON

PA26/0786

PAVEMENT OUTSIDE NO, LONDON, SW14 7JE

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals by Mr. Nathan Still against the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames' refusal to grant planning permission and express consent for a multifunctional communication hub outside 270-274 Upper Richmond Road West, East Sheen. The proposals included a structure with various facilities and an advertisement display. The main issues identified in both appeals were the impact of the proposals on pedestrian comfort and safety, as well as on visual amenity. The Inspector noted that while the site is located in a busy shopping area and the proposed structure would allow adequate space for pedestrian movement, it would contribute to existing visual clutter in the streetscape. The Inspector observed that pedestrian traffic was manageable, even during peak times, and concluded that public safety would not be compromised. However, the Inspector determined that the addition of the proposed structure and advertisement would exacerbate visual congestion, conflicting with local planning policies aimed at maintaining high-quality environments and enhancing the public realm. Despite finding no issues regarding pedestrian safety and comfort, the negative impact on visual amenity was deemed significant enough to warrant dismissal of both appeals. In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed due to the unacceptable contribution to visual clutter, despite the Inspector's favorable findings on pedestrian safety and comfort. 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.

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.