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.

173,348 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 — the UK

26/00301/FUL

5 Queens Road, SS1 1LT

The appeal decision, issued by Inspector Jonathan Price on 9 November 2026, concerns a planning application by Mr. Veli Albay for an extension to the second and third floors of a building at 5 Queens Road, Southend on Sea. The main issues evaluated were the proposal's impact on the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of neighboring residents at 7 Queens Road, particularly regarding outlook and light. The Inspector found that the proposed extension would detrimentally affect the character of the area by creating an incongruous and visually incoherent structure that disrupts the established building line and merges contrasting architectural styles. This was deemed contrary to local planning policies aimed at maintaining high-quality urban design. Regarding the living conditions of neighbors, the Inspector concluded that the extension would not materially worsen the existing situation concerning light and outlook for residents at 7 Queens Road. Although the proposal would exacerbate the enclosed feel of the space, it would not significantly increase the impact on light or outlook compared to the current conditions. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. The Inspector emphasized that while the proposal could contribute to housing supply, it did not provide a compelling case for approval due to its adverse effects on the character of the area, which outweighed any benefits. The decision reinforces the importance of compliance with local development plans and the need for good design in urban settings.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Wolverley

26/0173/S73

Wyre Mill House, Wolverley, DY11 5TR

The appeal decision concerns an application by Mr. Alec Evans to amend a condition of a previous planning permission for a replacement agricultural store at Wyre Mill House, Wolverley. The specific condition in dispute required the demolition of the building if it ceased to be used for agricultural purposes. The main issue was whether the proposed amendment fell within the scope of section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Inspector's reasoning hinged on the precedent set in the case of Finney v Welsh Ministers, which clarified that section 73 cannot be used to alter the operative part of a planning permission. The appellant argued that the land was never in agricultural use, but the Inspector noted that the site had last been used as a horticultural nursery, which is classified as agricultural under the law. The lack of agricultural activity observed in 2015 did not substantiate the claim that the land's lawful use had changed. The Inspector concluded that allowing the proposed amendment would conflict with the original permission's operative part, which designated the building for agricultural use. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Inspector stating that the appellant could pursue a new planning application for a revised development if desired. No further substantive planning matters were considered due to the dismissal based on procedural grounds.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Wolverley

26/0170/FUL

Wyre Mill House, Wolverley, DY11 5TR

The appeal decision concerns the proposed use of land at Wyre Mill House, Wolverley, for storage incidental to residential occupation, which was refused by Wyre Forest District Council. The main issues identified by the Inspector were whether the development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and its impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The Inspector noted that the site, which includes a gravelled area, an agricultural storage building, and shipping containers, is located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The Council maintained that the land remains in agricultural use, supported by a previous planning permission. The Inspector concluded that the proposed use would represent a material change from agricultural to domestic use, which is not permissible under Green Belt policies. The Inspector emphasized that the existing structures and proposed activities would harm the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with its purposes. Regarding character and appearance, the Inspector found that the proposed use would disrupt the tranquil, pastoral character of the area, leading to an intensification of domestic activities that would be visually discordant. The presence of shipping containers was deemed particularly harmful to the landscape. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, stating that the development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt and that no very special circumstances existed to justify it. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining the openness of the Green Belt and protecting the character of the rural landscape.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — the UK

25/01402/FUL

18-20 High Street, CO11 1AD

The planning appeal decision concerns the retrospective application for the reconfiguration of a garage/studios at 18-20 High Street, Manningtree, Essex, to create three self-contained studio units and a new craft/art studio. The appeal, made by Mr. C Wright against Tendring District Council's approval of the application with conditions, specifically disputes conditions 3 and 4, which restrict the use of the development to art studios and limit operational hours. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether the conditions imposed by the Council adequately protected residential amenity, particularly in terms of noise and disturbance to nearby residents. The Inspector noted that the site is situated in a mixed-use area with both commercial and residential properties. The appellant argued that the terminology regarding the use as art studios was enforceable and provided evidence of operational hours from nearby businesses, suggesting that the restrictions were overly stringent. The Inspector concluded that while condition 3, which restricts the use to art studios, was reasonable to maintain low-intensity use, condition 4 could be adjusted. The Inspector allowed the appeal regarding condition 4, extending the operational hours on Saturdays while maintaining restrictions on Sundays and public holidays. The Inspector found that these adjustments would still comply with relevant planning policies aimed at protecting residential amenity. In summary, the appeal was partly allowed, with condition 4 revised to permit longer Saturday hours, while condition 3 remained unchanged. The decision reflects a balance between the operational needs of the studio and the protection of local residents' amenity.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — St Helens

P/2025/0174/FUL

524 Fleet Lane and land to the south, St Helens, WA9 2NB

The appeal decision concerns the proposed demolition of 524 Fleet Lane and the construction of 51 affordable homes in Parr, St Helens, following a refusal by St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. The main issue was whether the development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined by relevant policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Inspector noted that the Council had initially cited six reasons for refusal, but only defended the Green Belt issue at the hearing. The proposal was assessed under the NPPF's guidelines, particularly regarding the Green Belt's purpose of preventing urban sprawl and maintaining openness. The Inspector concluded that the site did not strongly contribute to the Green Belt's purposes, as it was enclosed by existing development and did not facilitate urban sprawl or merging of towns. The Inspector also addressed the housing supply issue, determining that the Council's claimed five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) was overstated due to past oversupply and insufficient evidence for future projections. The conclusion was that the Council did not have a robust 5YHLS, which, under the NPPF, supported the need for the proposed development. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting planning permission for the development, subject to conditions outlined in a legal agreement. The decision emphasized the importance of addressing unmet housing needs and the compliance of the proposal with the NPPF's requirements for affordable housing in the Green Belt.

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.