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 on change of use in Bristol City 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 | Bristol City Council | National | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green Belt | n=1 — too few to rate | 31.8% (n=274) | |
| Residential amenity (privacy, light, outlook, noise) | 33.3% (n=12) | 30.0% (n=952) | |
| Heritage (listed buildings, conservation areas) | n=3 — too few to rate | 29.8% (n=326) | |
| Trees / ecology | no indexed appeals | 29.5% (n=227) | |
| Overdevelopment / cramming | no indexed appeals | 28.6% (n=28) | |
| Principle of development / location | no indexed appeals | 28.5% (n=302) | |
| Character & appearance / design | n=4 — too few to rate | 27.8% (n=996) | |
| Highway safety / parking | n=3 — too few to rate | 27.1% (n=462) | |
| Flood risk / drainage | n=1 — too few to rate | 26.0% (n=231) | |
| Standard of accommodation / space standards | n=3 — too few to rate | 25.4% (n=484) | |
| Planning obligations / s.106 | no indexed appeals | 23.1% (n=52) |
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.
69.1%of first resubmissions approved nationally (n=1241) ~86 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.
| Designation | Approval inside | Approval outside | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 77.6% (n=2,273) | 85.4% | -7.8 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.