Success rates by procedure + appeal type
Planning Inspectorate (PINS) Quarterly Statistics Q3 2024/25: England-wide householder appeals allowed 34% (4,612 decisions); s78 written representations 30% (3,841); s78 hearings 37% (612); s78 inquiries 45% (218). London region trends 2–4 points below England average across all procedures — reflecting more contested character/heritage refusals + sophisticated LPA case-making. By appeal subject: residential extensions 31% allowed; loft conversions (mansard refusals) 22% allowed; basement extensions (RBKC/Westminster) 18% allowed; change of use / outbuilding to dwelling 28%; enforcement Ground (a) (planning merits) 25%. By LPA: Westminster + RBKC consistently below 20% allowed (tough character refusals upheld); Hackney + Islington 28–32% (Article 4 enforcement upheld); Wandsworth + Lambeth 32–38% (more reversible refusals). Source: PINS open data + LGA appeals tracker.
What drives appeal outcomes
Quality of statement of case (SoC) is the single highest-leverage factor — well-evidenced SoCs addressing each refusal reason with policy + precedent + design rationale convert losing cases. Specifically: (1) point-by-point rebuttal of officer report — quoting the policy + showing compliance; (2) appeal decisions from same or similar LPA cited as material consideration; (3) design statement with comparable schemes approved nearby (Google Street View + LPA register evidence); (4) heritage statement where CA/listed — character analysis with photographic evidence; (5) daylight/sunlight BRE 209 assessment where overlooking/loss-of-light cited; (6) third party expert reports (heritage consultant, daylight surveyor) where high-stakes. Procedure choice matters less than commonly believed — inquiry rate is highest mainly because only strongest cases justify inquiry cost (£25k–£80k legal + expert fees). Builderr practice: pre-appeal viability review (commercial + planning lawyer) before committing — only appeal cases where independent assessment gives >40% odds.
