The August casework update is a route to decisions, not an answer

What the August update changed

On 27 August, the Planning Inspectorate replaced the downloadable current and older casework files with August 2026 versions. The official change note says the files were updated; it does not announce a new search service, a new coverage rule or a procedural change. [1]

The two data files are spreadsheets. They can support a bounded search for appeal references and metadata, but they are not a library of decision reasons and do not form a live record of every case. [1]

Choose the file that fits the task

For recent refusal research, start with the current file. It contains detailed information on a selection of Planning Inspectorate decisions over a rolling five-year period, while excluding cases still in progress and those withdrawn or turned away. [1]

The older file covers decisions between five and ten years old. The Inspectorate removes the case number, local-authority reference, names and full site address, and says its replacement reference is not connected to an appeal reference. That makes the file more suitable for aggregate historical context than for finding an individual decision. [1]

Build a neutral shortlist from the refusal

The current spreadsheet includes the Planning Inspectorate reference, local planning authority, dates, outcome, procedure and development type. Several site indicators and measurements are also present where known. [2]

• Copy each refusal reason exactly and identify the disputed planning issue before filtering the data. [2]

• Filter by the relevant authority and a recent decision period, then use appeal type, procedure or development type only when the field genuinely fits the proposal. [2]

• Keep a small, neutral set of references. Do not remove a case merely because its outcome differs from the result being sought. [1]

Read the decision, not just the row

GOV.UK says an appeal can be found with its seven-digit case reference or, when the reference is unknown, by searching the site's postcode. It links to two official services and advises trying the other one when a case is absent from the first. [3] Search the Rules for You planning appeals database

Once the official decision is open, compare the proposal, site relationship, policy position and decisive reasoning with the refusal. The spreadsheet's outcome and category fields cannot show why a particular fact carried weight. [2]

Do not turn counts into chances

The Inspectorate says cases are considered on their individual merits and evidence. It also warns that decision-makers handle different volumes and types of work, and that allocation can produce apparent outcome patterns that say nothing reliable about an Inspector's approach to a new case. [1]

An allowed percentage in a filtered slice, or for a decision-maker, is therefore not a forecast for an individual appeal. The useful comparison is narrower: what facts were materially alike, what facts differed, and how did the Inspector explain the decision? [1]

Keep the data limits visible

The official notes label some fields moderate, subjective or free-format. A blank may mean information was not supplied, a negative answer was left blank or the detail sits on a linked lead case. The Inspectorate also says records can change between releases and totals can differ from separately compiled statistics. [2] [1]

The publication page warns that the spreadsheets may not be suitable for some assistive-technology users and provides a route to request an accessible format. These limits belong in the research record alongside any cases selected from the file. [1]