Searching appeal decisions on the casework service
Appeal decisions are material considerations, not precedent. Here is how to search the casework service, read a decision for transferable reasoning, and cite it without overclaiming.
Published appeal decisions are the closest thing planning has to reported judgments, and they are not precedent. An inspector's conclusion binds nobody. What a decision gives you is reasoning on a policy question, applied to a set of facts, by someone whose job is to apply that policy consistently, and a decision maker who reaches a different conclusion on materially similar facts should explain why.
Used carefully, that is powerful. Used as a trump card, it invites the response that every case turns on its own facts, which is true and which will be said.
What the appeals casework service holds
The Planning Inspectorate publishes appeal documents and decisions through its casework service, searchable by local planning authority, by appeal reference, by postcode and by date. For a written representations appeal you will usually find the appeal form, the appellant's statement, the authority's statement, third party representations and the decision letter. For inquiries there will be proofs of evidence and, where the Secretary of State is the decision maker, the inspector's report alongside the decision.
Costs decisions are published with the appeal decision where an application for costs was made, and they are worth reading for a different reason, discussed below.
The appeal reference itself carries information. It identifies the authority, the appeal type, the year and a case number, with letters distinguishing the categories, for example householder appeals from other appeals against refusal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Learning the codes for the appeal types you deal with saves filtering time.
Searching so you find something useful
Full text searching across all decisions is limited, so build the search from the structured fields and narrow by reading.
- Start with your own authority and a date range covering the life of the current local plan. Decisions applying superseded policies are weaker.
- Add the appeal type, because householder appeals are decided on a fast track procedure with short decision letters and rarely help with a policy question.
- Where your authority has nothing on the point, widen to neighbouring authorities with similar plan policies, then to authorities with the same constraint, for example coastal, green belt or national landscape.
- For a policy interpretation question rather than a site specific one, geography matters less. A decision on the interpretation of a national policy test is useful wherever it was made.
- Check for a High Court challenge. A decision can be quashed under section 288 of the 1990 Act within six weeks, and citing a quashed decision is embarrassing and avoidable.
Keep a working list as you go, with reference, date, authority, issue and a one line note of the finding. Ten well chosen decisions beat forty downloads.
Reading for reasoning you can transfer
Every decision letter follows a similar structure: the decision, preliminary matters, main issues, reasons organised by issue, other matters, conditions where permission is granted, and the overall conclusion.
The transferable material is in the main issues and in the reasoning on each. What transfers is the inspector's approach to a policy: how a test was interpreted, what evidence was treated as necessary, how two competing policies were weighed, what weight was given to an emerging plan.
What does not transfer is the findings of fact: that the hedge screened the site, that the access had adequate visibility, that the harm to the setting of the listed building was at the lower end of less than substantial. Those depend on the site.
Separate the two explicitly when you cite a decision. A paragraph that says an inspector found a particular scheme acceptable is weak. A paragraph that says an inspector held that a policy requirement applies only where a defined threshold is crossed, and then applied it, is strong.
Costs decisions and what they tell you
Costs decisions are a study in what counts as unreasonable behaviour, and they are the most practical reading on the service.
Recurring themes on the authority side: refusing contrary to officer advice without evidence, reasons for refusal that are vague or unsupported by technical evidence, failing to substantiate a putative reason at appeal, imposing conditions that fail the tests, and delaying determination of an application without explanation.
On the appellant side: appealing without addressing the reasons for refusal, submitting substantially different schemes at appeal, and withdrawing at a late stage after the authority has incurred costs.
If you are advising on whether to appeal, reading five costs decisions involving your authority tells you more about the risk than reading twenty appeal decisions.
Citing a decision properly
Give the appeal reference, the site address, the decision date, the procedure, and the paragraph number relied on. Then state what the decision is being relied on for, in one sentence, and acknowledge that it is indicative rather than binding.
In a Planning Statement, a short table works better than prose: reference, date, issue, finding, relevance. Attach the decision letters as an appendix rather than quoting at length, and highlight the paragraphs you rely on.
Three habits that keep the argument credible. Cite decisions that go against you where they are directly on point, and deal with them, because the officer will find them. Do not rely on a single decision as though it settles the issue. And check that the policy relied on in the decision is still in force, since national policy has been re-issued several times in recent years and paragraph numbering has changed with it, which is why the planning law updates timeline is worth checking before citing anything by number.
The limits, stated plainly
An appeal decision is a material consideration, not a source of law. It can be given weight, little weight or no weight, and consistency arguments succeed where the comparison is close and fail where it is loose.
Three limits to keep in mind. Inspectors disagree with each other, and a decision on one side of a question does not mean the question is settled. Decisions are rarely reasoned as fully as a judgment, particularly in householder and fast track cases. And the evidence before the inspector shapes everything, so a finding that the highway impact was acceptable may reflect an unopposed technical case rather than an assessment of the merits.
Illustrative example: a consultant advising on a rural workers dwelling finds four appeal decisions in the region over three years. Two turn on the functional need test and set out what evidence inspectors expected, which is transferable. Two turn on the financial test on the particular holding, which is not. The statement cites the first two on methodology and does not rely on the second pair. Illustrative only.
Where the argument runs on housing supply, the position changes with time as delivery figures move, and the status of the figures at the date of each decision matters, which our note on finding housing land supply and delivery test figures sets out.
Read the procedural guide before your first inquiry or hearing. It is the document that tells you what the inspector expects at each stage, and it changes often enough to be worth rereading.
This is general guidance rather than legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. See PlanScope pricing if you want a drafted statement to build the appeal analysis into.
Frequently asked questions
Are appeal decisions binding on councils?
No. An inspector's decision is a material consideration rather than a source of law. Consistency in decision-making means a decision maker who reaches a different conclusion on materially similar facts should explain why, which is a duty to engage with the earlier decision rather than to follow it.
How do I find decisions on a specific issue?
Build the search from the structured fields rather than hoping for full text results. Start with your authority and a date range covering the current local plan, add the appeal type, then widen to neighbouring authorities or to authorities with the same constraint. For questions of policy interpretation rather than site specifics, geography matters much less.
Which parts of a decision letter transfer to another case?
The inspector's approach to a policy: how a test was interpreted, what evidence was treated as necessary, how competing policies were weighed and what weight was given to an emerging plan. Findings of fact about screening, visibility or the degree of heritage harm belong to that site and do not transfer.
Why read costs decisions?
Because they show what counts as unreasonable behaviour. Recurring themes include refusal contrary to officer advice without evidence, vague reasons for refusal, unsubstantiated putative reasons, and conditions that fail the tests. Reading a handful involving your authority tells you more about appeal risk than reading many more substantive decisions.
What should I check before citing a decision?
That it has not been quashed on a High Court challenge under section 288, which must be brought within six weeks, and that the policies applied are still in force. National policy has been re-issued several times in recent years with renumbering, so check the edition before citing anything by paragraph or policy reference.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.