172,874 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.

The UK's Most Comprehensive Planning Appeal Database

0
Planning Appeals
0+
Local Authorities
0+
Unique Appellants
0%
Appeals Allowed
0
Decision Documents

Latest appeal decisions

The most recent planning appeals, summarised by AI.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Sherington

PLN/2025/2569

Arbour House, Sherington, MK16 9PB

The planning appeal decision concerns the proposed erection of a single-storey, two-bedroom dwelling at Arbour House, Church Road, Sherington, Newport Pagnell, which was initially refused by Milton Keynes City Council. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the development on the living conditions of neighboring properties, particularly regarding privacy, outlook, and sunlight, and the effect on the setting of the nearby listed building, Arbour House. In assessing living conditions, the Inspector noted that while the proposed dwelling would be approximately 16-17.3 meters from neighboring properties, the single-storey nature of the development and existing boundary treatments would mitigate concerns regarding privacy and outlook. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby occupants, complying with Policy D5 of the Plan:MK. Regarding the setting of the listed building, the Inspector acknowledged the historical context but determined that the appeal site had evolved into a residential area, diminishing its significance as part of Arbour House's curtilage. The Inspector found that the proposed development would not harm the setting of the listed building, aligning with Policies HE1 and HE4 of the Framework. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting planning permission for the proposed development, subject to conditions outlined in the decision. The Inspector also noted that concerns about design and character were not raised by the Council as reasons for refusal, and other matters such as ecological impacts were adequately addressed.

Planning appeal — the UK

GATE-100-2 (Gatecheck Review)

Aberdeen City Council

The planning appeal decision letter from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division addresses the sufficiency of the Aberdeen City Evidence Report for the preparation of its Local Development Plan (LDP). The main issues revolved around housing and infrastructure, particularly transport, education, and healthcare, which were previously deemed insufficient. The Reporter, Claire Milne, conducted a reassessment following the submission of a revised report on September 21, 2026. Key arguments included the need for an updated Local Housing Land Requirement (LHLR) reflecting the planning authority's position, which was set at 10,560 units—significantly higher than the Minimum Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) of 7,000 units. The planning authority justified this increase based on demographic trends, economic ambitions, and historical housing delivery data. The evidence report also highlighted challenges such as social housing needs, school capacity, and healthcare investment. The Reporter found that the revised evidence report adequately addressed previous recommendations, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the local development plan's performance and implications for the emerging plan. While a few minor issues remained, they did not indicate overall insufficiency. The final decision deemed the evidence report sufficient for the planning authority to proceed with the LDP preparation, with the expectation that ongoing assessments of housing delivery and infrastructure capacity would continue. Conditions for future work included completing a Housing Land Audit and a Brownfield Urban Capacity Study to inform the proposed plan.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — MIDDLETON

24/01260/FUL

426 -428, MIDDLETON, M24 2QW

The planning appeal decision concerns the proposed change of use of a vacant building at 426-428 Briarmede, Rochdale Road, Middleton, from its previous operation as a care home to student accommodation, accommodating up to 16 students. The appeal was made by Mr. G.H. Adeel on behalf of Al Sadiq Academy against the refusal by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. The Inspector identified two main issues: the suitability of the site for student accommodation according to the local development plan, and the potential impact on the character of the area and the living conditions of neighboring residents due to noise and disturbance. The Inspector noted a lack of evidence supporting a local need for additional student accommodation, despite the proximity of educational institutions. The Council's data indicated limited demand in the area, particularly as existing universities do not provide residential facilities. Regarding the impact on neighbors, although the proposal would not significantly alter the visual character of the area, the anticipated increase in activity from 16 residents would likely lead to noise disturbances, particularly during evenings. The Inspector found that proposed management measures were insufficient to mitigate these impacts. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to the proposal's conflict with local policies aimed at preserving living conditions for residents, despite some benefits such as reusing a vacant building and potential economic gains. The Inspector concluded that the adverse effects outweighed the benefits, leading to the decision to refuse planning permission.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — the UK

APP/A5270/C/25/3373464

22 A STEELE ROAD, W4 5AA

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Ealing against Ms. Alicia Davies for non-compliance with a planning condition related to the development at 22a Steele Road, London. The enforcement notice, dated 19 August 2025, alleged that the installation of metal railings and privacy screens on a rear roof terrace violated condition 2 of planning permission granted on 21 April 2023, which required adherence to specified drawings. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and the living conditions of existing residents. The Inspector found that the materials used—metal railings clad with white plastic sheeting—were incongruous with the local architectural character and did not enhance the visual amenities of the area. Although the privacy screens mitigated overlooking and noise disturbances to neighboring properties, their visual impact was deemed harmful. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, upheld the enforcement notice, and refused the deemed planning application under section 177(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act. The decision emphasized that the development did not comply with relevant policies aimed at ensuring high-quality design and integration with the surrounding environment. The Inspector noted that concerns regarding the Council's internal communication should be addressed through the appropriate complaints channels rather than through the appeal process.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — the UK

26/00309/FUL

Land To The Rear Of 82 St James Way, DA14 5HF

The appeal decision concerns the proposal by Alpine Freehold Ltd for a two-storey rear extension intended for Class E(c) office use and ancillary storage at land behind 82 St James Way, Sidcup. The London Borough of Bexley had previously refused the application, prompting the appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The main issue identified by the Inspector was the impact of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. The Inspector noted that the site is situated within a service yard, characterized by various structures and parking areas, and that the proposed extension would not visually dominate the area despite its larger footprint. The design, featuring a flat roof and matching brickwork, was deemed compatible with the existing commercial unit and the surrounding environment. Key arguments from the Council included concerns about the development's legibility and its location outside the designated Neighbourhood Centre. However, the Inspector reasoned that the office use would not necessitate a street-facing frontage and would integrate well with the existing uses in the service yard. The proposal was also found not to adversely affect the adjacent High Beeches Conservation Area or the living conditions of nearby residents. Ultimately, the Inspector allowed the appeal, granting planning permission subject to conditions that include a time limit for commencement, adherence to approved plans, use of specified materials, and the submission of a Construction Management and Logistics Plan to mitigate construction impacts. The decision underscores the proposal's alignment with local planning policies and the absence of material considerations warranting a different outcome.

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.

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
Most Popular

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, Founder of Claw

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.

The Planner's Women of Influence 2026

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.