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.

171,483 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 — .

EIA-120-001

Land Surrounding Fallaws Of Arbirlot, .

The Scottish Ministers received a request for a screening direction regarding the necessity of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a proposed solar farm development near Arbroath, with a generation capacity of 49.9MW. The planning authority responsible for this decision is Angus Council. The main issue at hand was whether the proposed development would have significant environmental impacts warranting an EIA. Angus Council conducted a screening opinion on the matter, concluding that the development's potential impacts were unlikely to be significant and therefore did not require an EIA. This assessment was based on the criteria outlined in Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations. In response to the request for a screening direction, the Scottish Ministers reviewed the information provided, including Angus Council's assessment and rationale. They found no compelling reasons to dispute the council's conclusion that an EIA was unnecessary, reaffirming the council's position that the nature and scale of the development did not present significant environmental concerns. Consequently, the Scottish Ministers decided that an EIA is not required for the proposed solar farm development. A copy of this decision will be communicated to Angus Council, and further details related to the case will be made available through the Scottish Government's planning portal.

Recovered

Appeal Recovered — CLECKHEATON

APP/Z4718/C/26/3377669

Moorcroft, CLECKHEATON, BD19 6JT

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals (Appeal A and Appeal B) made by Mrs. Susan Fox and Mr. Geoffrey Fox against an enforcement notice issued by Kirklees Metropolitan Council regarding the erection of a fence adjacent to Moorside Paddock without planning permission. The enforcement notice, issued on December 17, 2025, required the removal of the fence within 30 days. The main issues addressed in the appeals were whether the alleged breach of planning control occurred and whether the fence constituted permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The Inspector noted that the key argument revolved around the definition of "highway" and whether Moorside Paddock qualified as one. The appellants successfully demonstrated that the fence did not extend across the boundary of the adjacent property, and the Inspector concluded that Moorside Paddock does not meet the criteria of a public highway, instead being a private way. The Inspector's reasoning emphasized the interpretation of planning legislation, concluding that the ordinary legal definition of a highway applies, which excludes Moorside Paddock from being classified as such. Consequently, the fencing was deemed permitted development, resulting in the enforcement notice being quashed. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, and the enforcement notice was annulled. The Inspector did not consider the appeals on grounds (f) and (g) as they were rendered unnecessary by the decision on ground (c). An application for costs was made by the appellants against the Council, which will be addressed separately.

Part Allowed

Appeal Part Allowed — LEOMINSTER

APP/W1850/C/25/3374743

Gorbett Bank Cottage, LEOMINSTER, HR6 0AS

In the appeal decision concerning Gorbett Bank Cottage, Herefordshire, the Inspector addressed several key issues following an enforcement notice issued by Herefordshire Council. The notice alleged unauthorized residential use of a building, a material change of use for a touring caravan, unauthorized fencing, and widening of access onto the B4361. The appellant, Mr. Tom Perkins, contested the notice, leading to an appeal under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Inspector's primary considerations included the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, the suitability of the location for residential development, and highway safety. The Inspector found that the alterations to the structure, which originated as a caravan, had rendered it a building due to significant modifications, including a permanent extension and cladding, which detracted from the rural character of the area. The development was deemed contrary to local planning policies aimed at preserving landscape integrity and local character. Furthermore, the site’s rural location was considered unsuitable for residential development, being distanced from essential services and lacking public transport, which would necessitate reliance on private vehicles. The Inspector also noted concerns regarding highway safety, as the access did not meet required visibility standards, posing risks given the speed of traffic on the B4361. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, the enforcement notice upheld, and planning permission was refused. The enforcement notice was corrected to clarify the nature of the breaches but maintained its requirements, including the cessation of residential use and removal of unauthorized structures. Compliance periods were set at 9 to 11 months for various requirements.

Quashed

Appeal Quashed — the UK

APP/Y5420/C/25/3374769

15 Walpole Road, N17 6BE

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Haringey against Mr. Muzaffer Gulkaya for unauthorized development at 15 Walpole Road, London. The notice, dated 2 October 2025, alleges the erection of a plastic and wooden single-storey rear extension on a raised platform without planning permission. The requirements of the notice include the removal of the extension, platform, and all resulting debris, with a compliance period of four months. The main issues identified by the Inspector were the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of neighboring properties, specifically Nos. 13 and 17 Walpole Road, regarding privacy. The Inspector found that the materials and design of the extension were incongruous and detracted from the area's character, violating local planning policies. Furthermore, the raised platform led to significant overlooking into No. 13's garden, resulting in a loss of privacy for its occupants, although No. 17 was less adversely affected. The appellant argued that the extension was necessary for their medical needs, but the Inspector concluded that the harm caused by the development outweighed any benefits, including the appellant's personal circumstances. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, the enforcement notice upheld, and planning permission refused, as the development conflicted with the local development plan and national policies promoting high-quality design and living conditions.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

ENA-230-2462

Land 24M South Of 56 Old Burdiehouse Road, EH17 8BH

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the City of Edinburgh Council regarding a site at 24 meters south of 56 Old Burdiehouse Road, Edinburgh. The notice alleged a material change of use of the land for storage, a workshop, and a personal fitness studio, alongside operational developments including the erection of an industrial shed and hard surfacing. The main issues revolved around whether the alleged breaches of planning control were immune from enforcement action under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and whether the steps required by the enforcement notice were excessive. The Reporter found that the uses of the land had not been established for the requisite ten years to claim immunity and thus upheld the enforcement notice. However, he determined that certain elements, such as the industrial shed and associated hardstanding, were immune from enforcement action due to their substantial nature and completion prior to the initial enforcement action. In terms of the steps outlined in the enforcement notice, the Reporter concluded that while the requirement to cease the unauthorized uses was justified, the demands to remove the industrial shed and all hard surfacing were excessive. Consequently, he varied the enforcement notice to require only the removal of hard surfacing from the southern part of the site and restoration of that area, excluding the boundary treatment. Ultimately, the appeal was upheld in part, with the enforcement notice maintained but modified as specified. The Reporter noted that the appellant's lack of awareness of the need for permissions was not a relevant factor in his assessment.

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.