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.

169,652 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

SDNP/25/04240/PIP

Land at Rogers Lane, BN14 0RE

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by Mr. R Gamble for permission in principle (PIP) to construct a chalet-style dwelling on land at Rogers Lane, Findon, within the South Downs National Park (SDNP). The South Downs National Park Authority had previously refused the application, leading to this appeal. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and the natural beauty of the SDNP, as well as its spatial strategy and accessibility to services. The Inspector noted that the site is located outside any settlement boundary and is characterized by an open rural landscape, which contributes positively to the SDNP's character. The proposed dwelling would likely appear prominent in the landscape, detracting from views of Cissbury Ring and eroding the sense of openness, thus failing to conserve the natural beauty of the park. Regarding accessibility, the Inspector concluded that the site is poorly connected to Findon, with reliance on private vehicles for access to services, which contradicts the aims of sustainable development policies. In weighing the benefits of providing an additional housing unit against the adverse impacts identified, the Inspector found that the latter significantly outweighed the former. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Inspector concluding that the proposal did not comply with relevant local and national planning policies aimed at protecting the SDNP's landscape and promoting sustainable development. No specific conditions were outlined as the appeal was dismissed outright.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Selborne

SDNP/25/04098/CND

Albury Dairy, Selborne, GU33 6BX

The appeal decision concerns a request by Dr. William Selborne of the Blackmoor Estate to modify conditions attached to a previous planning permission for the change of use of an agricultural building to Class B8 storage at Albury Dairy, Honey Lane, Selborne, within the South Downs National Park. The appeal was prompted by the South Downs National Park Authority's failure to decide on the application within the prescribed period. The main issues revolved around the impact of proposed changes to operating hours and the removal of specific conditions aimed at protecting the living conditions of nearby residents and the tranquillity of the National Park. The appellant sought to extend operating hours and remove conditions related to noise control, including the use of white noise reversing alarms, the requirement for electric plant, noise level restrictions, and limits on HGV movements. The Inspector concluded that while some conditions could be relaxed, particularly regarding the use of electric plant, others were necessary to mitigate noise and disturbance. The proposed extension of operating hours was deemed acceptable, as it would not significantly impact local amenity. However, conditions regarding reversing alarms, noise levels, and HGV movements were retained to ensure protection against potential disturbances. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting permission for the change of use with a variation to condition 4 (operating hours) and the removal of condition 6 (electric plant requirement), while maintaining conditions 5, 7, and 8 to safeguard local amenity and tranquillity.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

PPA-230-2801

Flat 1 15 York Place, EH1 3EB

The appeal decision by the Reporter, C. Bryans, concerns a retrospective application for the change of use of a ground floor office at 15 York Place, Edinburgh, to short-term let accommodation. The City of Edinburgh Council had previously refused this application, prompting the appeal. The main issues identified in the appeal were the impact on the amenity of existing residents and the potential loss of residential accommodation. The Reporter emphasized the need to assess the proposal against the development plan, specifically National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Edinburgh City Plan 2030 (LDP). Key arguments included concerns about increased noise and disturbance from transient guests compared to the predictable patterns of office use, which could adversely affect the living conditions of neighboring residents. The Reporter acknowledged the economic benefits of tourism but concluded that these did not outweigh the detrimental impacts on residential amenity. The evidence provided by the appellant regarding economic benefits was deemed insufficient to counter the significant risks posed to the amenity of existing residents. Ultimately, the Reporter dismissed the appeal, refusing planning permission for the change of use, citing non-compliance with relevant development plan policies. The decision highlighted that the proposed use would materially detract from the living conditions of residents and that no material considerations justified granting permission.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — liverpool

25F/1821

5 St Marys Road, liverpool, L19 2NJ

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by Tahir Khan for Task Butler Ltd to convert the upper floors of 5 St Marys Road, Liverpool, from two vacant apartments into a seven-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO). The Liverpool City Council had previously refused the application, leading to this appeal. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether the proposed HMO would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. The Council's concerns centered on inadequate internal and external living space, as outlined in relevant local policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposal included a first-floor extension and various alterations, but the Inspector noted that the internal configuration would be cramped, failing to meet minimum room size standards. Furthermore, the absence of external amenity space was highlighted as a significant deficiency, with no nearby parks or public open spaces to mitigate this lack. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not meet the living standards required by local policy H10 and the NPPF, thus dismissing the appeal. Although there was an existing permission for converting the upper floors into two flats, the Inspector determined that the proposed HMO would represent a more intense use of the space, which did not favor the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no specific conditions were outlined in the decision.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Ealing

261252HH

1 Bedford Road, Ealing, W4 1HU

The appeal decision concerns a planning application by Mr. Karayi for the erection of a small summerhouse/store at 1 Bedford Road, Chiswick, London, which was refused by the London Borough of Ealing. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding Bedford Park Conservation Area (CA), particularly regarding the Grade II listed building at No. 1A Bedford Road. The Inspector noted that the Bedford Park CA is characterized by its historic and architectural significance, with properties that contribute positively to the area’s aesthetic. The proposed summerhouse, despite being constructed from appropriate materials, would be visually intrusive due to its height and scale, detracting from the setting of the listed building and the overall character of the CA. The Inspector emphasized that even low levels of harm to designated heritage assets are given substantial weight in planning decisions. While the appellant argued that the summerhouse would provide practical benefits for garden maintenance, the Inspector concluded that these benefits did not outweigh the identified harm to the heritage assets. The proposal was found to conflict with several local and national policies aimed at preserving the character of heritage sites. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with the Inspector stating that the adverse effects of the development substantially outweighed any potential benefits, reaffirming the importance of adhering to the development plan. No specific conditions were outlined in the decision, as the appeal was entirely dismissed.

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.