172,221 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

DC/25/3438/LBC

27 Sun Lane, IP12 1EG

The planning appeal decision letter addresses two appeals by Mr. and Mrs. Rapley concerning proposed works at 27 Sun Lane, Woodbridge, Suffolk, which were refused by East Suffolk Council. The appeals involve a request for listed building consent (Appeal A) and planning permission (Appeal B) for a new rear dormer and green roof to replace an existing flat roof. The main issues identified by the Inspector were whether the proposal would preserve the significance of the Grade II listed building and its setting, as well as the character of the Woodbridge Conservation Area. For Appeal B, the impact on the living conditions of neighboring occupants was also considered. The Inspector concluded that the proposed dormer would disrupt the traditional roofline of the terrace, eroding the architectural integrity of the listed building and negatively impacting the setting of adjacent listed properties. Despite the use of high-quality materials, the design was deemed incongruous and harmful to the historic character of the area. While the proposal would not significantly affect the living conditions of nearby residents, it failed to meet the requirements for preserving the historic environment. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed. The Inspector emphasized that the limited public benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the considerable harm to the heritage assets, thus conflicting with national policies and local planning regulations aimed at protecting historic environments.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — the UK

DC/25/3437/FUL

27 Sun Lane, IP12 1EG

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals by Mr. and Mrs. Rapley regarding their proposals for a new rear dormer and green roof at 27 Sun Lane, Woodbridge, Suffolk. The appeals were made against the refusal of listed building consent and planning permission by East Suffolk Council. The main issues identified by the Inspector were whether the proposals would preserve the significance of the Grade II listed building and its setting, as well as the character of the Woodbridge Conservation Area. For Appeal B, the impact on the living conditions of neighboring occupiers was also considered. The Inspector emphasized the importance of preserving the architectural integrity of the listed building and its terrace, noting that the proposed dormer would disrupt the traditional roofline and result in the loss of historic brickwork. Although some nearby properties had dormers, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the listed building and the wider terrace's significance, thereby detracting from the conservation area's historic environment. While the Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of neighboring residents, the overall harm to the historic environment was deemed significant. The limited public benefits, such as improved usability of a bedroom and minor economic advantages, were not sufficient to outweigh the considerable harm identified. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, with the Inspector concluding that the proposals conflicted with national policies aimed at protecting the historic environment and local planning policies designed to enhance it.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Berkhamsted

24/02705/MOA

Bulbourne Wood, Berkhamsted, HP4 1LN

The appeal decision letter concerns the refusal of outline planning permission by Dacorum Borough Council for the construction of a nursing home with up to 67 bedrooms for dementia care at Bulbourne Wood, Northchurch, Berkhamsted. The main issues addressed by the Inspector included whether the proposed development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, its impact on the openness of the Green Belt, effects on protected woodlands and the Chilterns National Landscape, implications for local biodiversity, and the adequacy of sustainable transport provisions. The Inspector noted that while there is a recognized need for nursing home spaces, the site’s location raised significant concerns regarding transport accessibility and potential parking issues. The proposed facility would likely generate substantial traffic, including staff and service vehicles, which could lead to congestion on New Road due to insufficient parking provision. The Inspector highlighted that the site is not ideally situated for sustainable transport options, with limited public transport services and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure. Ultimately, the Inspector concluded that the development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, failing to meet the necessary criteria to justify such development. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on 26 October 2026, with no conditions attached as the application was not granted. The decision emphasized the importance of protecting the Green Belt and ensuring that any development aligns with sustainable transport principles.

Allowed

Appeal Allowed — Sowerby Bridge

25/01069/FUL

Hollin House, Sowerby Bridge, HX6 4LH

The appeal decision concerns a proposal by C & G Morse for a single-storey agricultural storage building at Hollin House, Ripponden, which was initially refused by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. The Inspector, J Smith MRTPI, conducted a site visit on 21 October 2026 and issued the decision on 23 October 2026, allowing the appeal. The main issues evaluated were whether the development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, its impact on the character and appearance of the Blackwood Common Landscape Character Area, and its effects on the living conditions of neighboring residents regarding noise and odor. The Inspector determined that the proposed building would be used for agricultural purposes, specifically for storing hay, feed, and machinery, which aligns with Green Belt policies that permit agricultural buildings. Despite the absence of livestock at the time of the site visit, the Inspector noted that establishing storage facilities prior to introducing livestock is reasonable. Regarding the character and appearance, the Inspector acknowledged that while the proposed timber cladding contrasts with the local stone architecture, this could be mitigated through a condition requiring approval of external materials. The development's modest size and positioning would not significantly detract from the landscape. On living conditions, the Inspector concluded that noise from machinery and potential odors would be minimal, especially since the building would not house livestock. A condition restricting the building's use to storage only was deemed necessary to protect neighbors' amenity. The appeal was allowed, with conditions including time limits, adherence to approved plans, submission of material details, and restrictions on the building's use.

Dismissed

Appeal Dismissed — Tanworth-in-Arden

26/00255/FUL

Chatsworth House, Tanworth-in-Arden, B94 5DP

The appeal decision concerns the proposed change of use of agricultural land to a domestic garden at Chatsworth House, Broad Lane, Wood End, Solihull, which was refused by Stratford-on-Avon District Council. The Inspector, D Marley, identified four main issues: whether the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, its impact on the character and appearance of the area, its suitability under relevant development plan policies, and whether any harm from inappropriateness could be outweighed by other considerations. The Inspector concluded that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as it did not fall within the exceptions outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the Core Strategy. The Inspector reasoned that while some activities associated with gardens could be considered outdoor recreation, the primary use of a garden is residential, which does not align with the exceptions for Green Belt development. The Inspector noted contrasting decisions from other cases but ultimately found that the appeal did not meet the criteria for outdoor recreation. In terms of character and appearance, the Inspector found that the site’s enclosed nature and limited visibility from public vantage points meant that the change of use would not harm the character of the area. The proposal was deemed to comply with relevant policies regarding landscape and character. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to the determination that the change of use constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, despite the lack of significant visual impact on the area. No specific conditions were imposed as the appeal was not granted.

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.