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.

168,005 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 — 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.

Split Decision

Appeal Split Decision — Edinburgh

ENA-230-2460

Flat 1F2, Edinburgh, EH10 4ER

The appeal decision from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division concerns an enforcement notice issued by the City of Edinburgh Council against Annie Harper for the unauthorized use of a residential flat as a short-term let. The main issues addressed in the appeal were whether the use constituted a breach of planning control, whether the steps required by the notice were excessive, and whether the compliance period was reasonable. The Reporter concluded that the use of the property as a short-term let did indeed represent a material change of use, as it commenced after the establishment of the Edinburgh Short-term Let Control Area, thus constituting a breach of planning control. The appeal under ground (c) failed as the appellant could not demonstrate that the use was lawful. Similarly, the appeal under ground (f) was unsuccessful because the Reporter found that the cessation of the short-term letting was necessary to remedy the breach and its impact on local amenity. However, the appeal under ground (g) succeeded, as the Reporter acknowledged the appellant's concerns regarding the one-month compliance period. Considering the timing of the decision relative to the busy summer festival period and existing bookings, the Reporter varied the enforcement notice to extend the compliance period to two months. In conclusion, the enforcement notice was upheld, but the compliance timeframe was amended to two months, allowing for a fair balance between the appellant's interests and the concerns of local residents.

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/D1835/C/25/3376648

217 Newtown Road, WR5 1JB

The planning appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Worcester City Council against Ms. Clair Birch regarding the unauthorized erection of a two-storey outbuilding at 217 Newtown Road, Worcester. The notice, issued on 25 November 2025, requires the demolition of the outbuilding, removal of fencing, and disposal of debris, with a compliance period of six months. The appeal was made on grounds (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Under ground (f), the appellant argued that the requirements of the notice were excessive and that the outbuilding could be regularized as ancillary accommodation. However, the Inspector noted that the previous appeal had already determined that the building's physical form adversely affected the character and appearance of the area, and merely restricting its use would not remedy the identified harm. Therefore, the Inspector concluded that the requirements of the notice were necessary to address the breach of planning control. Under ground (g), the appellant requested an extension of the compliance period from six months to eighteen months, citing the specific needs of her daughter currently residing in the outbuilding. The Inspector acknowledged these personal circumstances but emphasized that they did not change the planning merits of the case. The six-month period was deemed sufficient for compliance, with the option for the local authority to extend it if necessary. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld, requiring the appellant to comply with its terms within the specified timeframe.

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.

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.