172,078 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.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

S.26/0317/P3Q

Bassett Court Farm, GL11 6DQ

The appeal decision concerns the proposed change of use of an agricultural barn at Bassett Court Farm, North Nibley, to create two dwellings, which was refused by Stroud District Council. The main issues addressed by the Inspector were whether the proposed development constituted permitted development under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and whether prior approval should be granted, particularly concerning noise impacts and the practicality of the location due to nearby dog boarding kennels. The Inspector found that the proposed change of use and associated building operations fell within the scope of Class Q, as the barn was structurally sound and capable of conversion. However, significant concerns arose regarding noise impacts from the adjacent dog kennels, which could adversely affect the living conditions of future occupants. The appellant's unilateral undertaking to cease kennel operations before the occupation of the dwellings was deemed insufficient due to uncertainties regarding its enforceability and the potential for resumption of kennel use. Despite the arrangement of private amenity spaces being acceptable, the close proximity to the kennels and the lack of evidence demonstrating acceptable noise levels led the Inspector to conclude that the change of use would be undesirable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with prior approval refused on the grounds of unacceptable noise impacts and the impracticality of the location. The Inspector emphasized that neither the submitted undertaking nor proposed conditions could adequately mitigate the identified concerns.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

PA25/07345

25 CLIFF STREET, PL26 6QJ

The appeal decision concerns a proposed two-storey extension at 25 Cliff Street, Mevagissey, Cornwall, intended for use as a holiday let. The main issue identified by the Inspector was whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mevagissey Conservation Area (CA), a designated heritage asset. The Inspector noted that the appeal site is situated within a historic fishing port characterized by narrow streets and a mix of architectural styles. The existing building contributes positively to the CA's character. The proposed extension would significantly increase the bulk and massing of the dwelling, extending over a retaining wall and impacting views from a public right of way (PROW). The Inspector concluded that this would disrupt the established hierarchy of built forms in the area and undermine the CA's significance. While the proposal aimed to provide limited public benefits, such as contributing to local tourism and reducing clutter, the Inspector found these benefits insufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the heritage asset. The lack of substantive evidence supporting the viability of a smaller extension further diminished the appellant's case. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, citing conflicts with several local and national planning policies aimed at conserving heritage environments. The decision emphasized that the proposed development would not respond appropriately to its context and would fail to preserve the character of the CA. No specific conditions were outlined as the appeal was dismissed outright.

Recovered

Appeal Recovered — BEDFORD

APP/K0235/C/26/3378548

Land known as Struttle End Farm, Renhold Road, BEDFORD, MK44 2RH

The planning appeal decision letter concerns a costs application made by Jonathan Erven and I Want Storage Ltd against Bedford Borough Council (LPA) related to enforcement notices issued for the unauthorized use of land at Struttle End Farm. The applicants sought a full award of costs, alleging that the LPA acted unreasonably in three main areas: inadequate investigation of land occupiers, failure to correct an erroneous plan attached to the enforcement notice, and incorrect identification of the land in question. The Inspector, J. Whitfield, addressed these points systematically. Regarding the identification of land, the Inspector noted that since the appeals were successful on ground (e), there was no need to determine whether the LPA had correctly identified the land, thus not constituting unreasonable behavior. On the issue of the incorrect plan, while the LPA's oversight was regrettable, it was not deemed unreasonable as the error was identified in time for the applicants to respond. The Inspector acknowledged that the LPA's investigation into potential land occupiers was insufficient, which constituted unreasonable behavior. However, the LPA had justified its actions during the appeal, suggesting that even with better initial investigation, the outcome would not have changed. Consequently, the Inspector concluded that the applicants did not incur unnecessary expenses due to the LPA's actions, leading to the refusal of the costs application. In summary, the Inspector denied the costs application, citing a lack of incurred unnecessary expenses despite recognizing some unreasonable behavior by the LPA.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

PP/25/06688

32 Kensington Place, W8 7PR

The appeal decision concerns a proposed mansard roof extension at 32 Kensington Place, London, which was rejected by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The main issues evaluated were the impact of the extension on the character and appearance of the Kensington Conservation Area (KCA) and compliance with fire safety standards. The Inspector found that the proposed extension would harm the KCA's character, which is defined by its historical and architectural significance. The KCA, particularly the Hillgate Village sub-area, is characterized by a consistent roofline and architectural coherence, which the proposed mansard would disrupt. Although the appellant cited nearby examples of roof extensions, the Inspector determined these were not directly comparable due to their lower profiles and set-back positions, which do not affect the original roofline. On fire safety, the proposal was deemed acceptable as it included a commitment to install a residential sprinkler system, complying with local fire safety policies. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that while the fire safety aspect was satisfactory, the detrimental impact on the KCA outweighed any benefits from additional residential space. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the proposed development would conflict with local and national policies aimed at preserving the historic environment. No conditions were imposed as the appeal was entirely rejected.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Fittleworth

SDNP/26/01219/LIS

30C, Fittleworth, RH20 1ES

The planning appeal decision concerns two applications by Charlotte Williams for the property at 30C Coates Lane, Fittleworth, West Sussex, which were refused by the South Downs National Park Authority. Appeal A sought permission for a two-storey rear extension, while Appeal B sought listed building consent for the same works. Both appeals were dismissed. The main issues identified by the Inspector were whether the proposed development would preserve the Grade II listed building and its features of special architectural or historic interest, and whether it would enhance the character or appearance of the Coates Conservation Area (CA). The Inspector noted the CA's significance stems from its historic buildings and rural character, while the listed building's special interest is derived from its vernacular architecture and historic fabric. The Inspector acknowledged that the proposed extension would not detract from the CA's overall significance but raised concerns about the design's bulk and its impact on the historic form of the listed building. The extension would obscure significant architectural features and remove a characteristic chimney stack, resulting in moderate harm to the building's historic interest. Although the removal of a modern side extension was a positive aspect, it did not outweigh the harm caused by the proposed alterations. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the public benefits of the proposal were insufficient to outweigh the identified harm, leading to the dismissal of both appeals. The decision emphasized the importance of preserving the historic and architectural integrity of designated heritage assets in line with relevant planning policies.

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.