Measured from real Inspectorate decision letters — updated nightly

Appeal Survival Rates

Not every refusal reason is equally fatal. We read thousands of PINS decision letters and measured which contested issues actually survive appeal — nationally and in your authority — plus how often a revised resubmission succeeds instead.

Which refusal reasons survive appeal in Bath and North East Somerset Council?

Share of decided appeals raising each issue that were allowed. Higher = softer refusal reason. Authority rates shown where at least 10 decided appeals raise the issue; grey bars are the national baseline.

Refusal reason Bath and North East Somerset Council National
Planning obligations / s.106 n=3 — too few to rate 36.0% (n=1,687)
Character & appearance / design 15.4% (n=52) 28.7% (n=47,561)
Principle of development / location n=6 — too few to rate 28.7% (n=7,673)
Highway safety / parking 20.0% (n=20) 28.3% (n=10,089)
Green Belt 12.5% (n=16) 28.0% (n=7,285)
Residential amenity (privacy, light, outlook, noise) 21.1% (n=19) 27.9% (n=24,542)
Heritage (listed buildings, conservation areas) 20.8% (n=48) 27.1% (n=17,658)
Flood risk / drainage n=5 — too few to rate 25.8% (n=3,999)
Overdevelopment / cramming n=4 — too few to rate 25.7% (n=2,245)
Trees / ecology 9.1% (n=11) 23.0% (n=6,475)
Standard of accommodation / space standards n=7 — too few to rate 21.6% (n=9,471)

Derived from PINS decision letters with extracted text (not every appeal is indexed). A reason being "raised" means the Inspector identified it among the main issues — observational data, not a prediction for any individual scheme.

Refused? Resubmitting often beats appealing

Measured from refusals in our decision corpus that were followed by a fresh application at the same address.

67.9%
of first resubmissions approved nationally (n=1167)
~147 days
typical refusal-to-redecision gap

Not enough measured resubmissions in this authority yet to quote a local rate.

The designation reality check

Measured approval rates for decided applications inside each designation vs the same authorities outside it. The gap is smaller than most people assume — the risk is usually the proposal, not the postcode.

DesignationApproval insideApproval outsideEffect
Conservation area 87.4% (n=5,433) 83.1% +4.3 points
Article 4 area 82.7% (n=6,867) 85.5% -2.8 points
Green Belt 80.0% (n=4,501) 87.1% -7.1 points

National figures across authorities with a full decisions stream; conservation-area and Article 4 rows use precisely-located applications only. Observational, not causal — the mix of what people apply for differs inside designations.

About this tool: Appeal Survival Rates

Which refusal reasons actually survive appeal — measured from thousands of PINS decision letters, by authority vs national. Includes measured resubmission success rates and the designation reality check.

When to use it

Use after a refusal to decide between appealing and resubmitting, or before submitting to see which issues your authority fights hardest. Updated nightly from the decision corpus.

Policy and guidance it draws on

PINS appeal decision analysis, consistency in decision-making

Part of Authority Intelligence

Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.

Related tools
Planning Risk Score™LPA ProfileNPPF TrackerCommittee PredictorCommittee vs Delegated AnalysisHousing SupplyPre-App Strategy BuilderStrategy Simulator

Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.

Ask Planning Agent
🧭Guide me