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.

169,144 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 — the UK

PPA-230-2849

3F1 120 Marchmont Road Marchmont, EH9 1BG

The City of Edinburgh Council has refused planning permission for the replacement of wooden sash and case windows with UPVC windows at 3F1 120 Marchmont Road, Edinburgh, as per application No: 25/06374/FUL. The decision was made on 11 February 2026, following a Local Delegated Decision process. The main issues identified in the refusal pertain to the adverse impact of the proposed works on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and the character of the conservation area. The Council cited several legal and policy frameworks, including sections 59 and 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, and various Local Development Plan (LDP) policies (Env 1, Env 5, Env 12, Env 14) and National Planning Framework (NPF) policies (1, 7, 14). The key arguments against the proposal emphasized that the UPVC windows would be inappropriate in design and detrimental to the historic character of the area. The Reporter concluded that the proposal did not adequately respect the architectural features of the listed building and failed to preserve the conservation area's character. Consequently, the application was deemed unacceptable, and no conditions were attached to the refusal. The decision allows the applicant to seek a review within three months if aggrieved by the refusal. Further information on the appeal process is provided in the decision notice.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — Buckinghamshire

APP/N0410/C/25/3376241

The Woollets, Buckinghamshire, SL3 6JE

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Buckinghamshire Council against Mrs. Mona Bhogal for the unauthorized erection of an attached garage with a rear box dormer at The Woollets, Fulmer. The notice, issued on 17 October 2025, required the demolition of the garage and removal of associated materials within four months. The appeal was made under grounds (f) and (g) of section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as the appeal on ground (a) was barred due to the timing of the related planning application. The main issues addressed were whether the steps required by the enforcement notice exceeded what was necessary to remedy the breach of planning control (ground f) and whether the compliance period was adequate (ground g). The Inspector found that the requirements of the notice were appropriate for remedying the breach and did not exceed what was necessary, thus dismissing ground (f). The appellant's argument for reinstating a previous garage was deemed irrelevant as it constituted a different development. On ground (g), the Inspector acknowledged that the four-month compliance period was insufficient, particularly given the complexities involved in safely demolishing the garage and making good the property. The Inspector concluded that an extension to six months was justified, allowing the appellant adequate time to comply with the notice. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, but the compliance period was varied from four to six months. The enforcement notice was upheld as varied.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — the UK

APP/N5090/C/25/3376088

48 Oldberry Road, HA8 9DB

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Barnet against Mr. Joseph Yeboah for the alleged unauthorized use of a property at 48 Oldberry Road as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The notice, issued on 3 November 2025, required the cessation of this use within six months. The Inspector considered the appeal on two grounds: (a) that planning permission should be granted for the alleged use, and (b) that the alleged breach had not occurred. On ground (b), the appellant claimed the property was used as a single-family dwelling. However, the Inspector found insufficient evidence from the appellant to support this claim, while the Council provided evidence suggesting the property had been used as an HMO, thus failing the appellant's case on this ground. On ground (a), the Inspector noted that Barnet's Local Plan requires evidence of a need for HMOs, which was not demonstrated in this case. The property is situated in a suburban area predominantly occupied by single-family homes, and the Inspector concluded that an HMO would likely disrupt the residential character and living conditions of neighbors due to increased noise and activity. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, the enforcement notice was upheld, and planning permission was refused for the use of the property as an HMO, confirming that the proposed use conflicted with local planning policies.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — Hampshire

APP/Y9507/C/26/3377648

Land at Land east of New Barn Farm Lane,, Hampshire, PO8 0QG

The planning appeal decision letter addresses two appeals related to land east of New Barn Farm Lane, Blendworth, Hampshire, involving an enforcement notice issued by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) and a refusal of planning permission for the stationing of caravans for residential use. **Main Issues**: The appeals focus on the appropriateness of the proposed use of land in a National Park setting and its impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including potential noise and light pollution. **Key Arguments**: The appellants argued that the residential use of the land was necessary due to an unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches, as identified in the East Hants District Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. They also contended that the enforcement notice was flawed due to an incomplete plan and sought an extension of the compliance period from eight to eighteen months. **Inspector's Reasoning**: The Inspector upheld the enforcement notice, finding that the proposed use was not suitable given the site's location outside of a settlement boundary and its classification as open countryside within a National Park. The Inspector noted that while there was an identified need for pitches, the development would conflict with local policies aimed at protecting the landscape and character of the area. The Inspector did, however, extend the compliance period from eight to twelve months, acknowledging the disruption caused by vacating the site. **Final Decision**: Appeal A was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld with the compliance period extended. Appeal B was also dismissed, denying planning permission for the proposed residential use. **Conditions**: The Inspector varied the enforcement notice to extend the compliance period to twelve months, but no further conditions were imposed due to the dismissal of the planning application.

Recovered

Appeal Recovered — Staffordshire

APP/B3438/C/26/3377456

Sprinks Farm, Staffordshire, ST13 8QE

The planning appeal decision concerns Sprinks Farm, Horton, Leek, where Dr. Edward James Gibson and Mrs. Monika Gibson contested an enforcement notice issued by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. The notice, dated 16 December 2025, alleged a material change of use of agricultural land to a residential domestic garden, alongside unauthorized works including a raised patio, pergola, and hardstanding. The Council required the land to be restored to its original agricultural state within six months. The appeals were made under several grounds, primarily focusing on whether the alleged breach had occurred. The appellants argued that the land did not constitute a "garden" as defined by traditional cultivation practices. The Inspector noted that while some elements typical of a garden were present, such as outdoor furniture and a hot tub, the absence of cultivated plants indicated that the land had not been transformed into a garden. The Inspector concluded that describing the area as a "residential domestic garden" was inaccurate and acknowledged the Council's suggestion of "domestic outdoor space." However, altering the notice would unjustly affect the appellants, leading to the decision to allow the appeals on ground (b) and quash the enforcement notice. Consequently, the appeals on other grounds and the deemed planning application were not considered. The final decision was to allow the appeals and quash the enforcement notice.

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.