Leicestershire
282 planning applications from Leicester. Ask questions about them in plain English from ChatGPT or Claude — no coding, about two minutes to set up — or pull them straight into your own software. 11 pieces of information are filled in on at least 90% of records.
We hold only 282 applications here. Treat an absent record as "not published to us", never as "no such application".
We can't calculate an approval rate for Leicester: it doesn't publish a usable decision on enough of its applications. That's a gap in what the council makes available, not a sign that nothing is decided — 9 of the councils we hold are in the same position.
The mix of application types Leicester handles — useful for telling whether your kind of application is routine here or unusual.
| Application type | Applications | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Full | 162 | 57.4% |
| Other | 35 | 12.4% |
| Certificate | 29 | 10.3% |
| Conditions | 24 | 8.5% |
| Tree | 11 | 3.9% |
How approval rates and decision times vary across the country →
A "field" is one piece of information on an application — the decision date, the applicant's name, the address. Councils fill these in inconsistently, so this table measures how often Leicester actually provides each one, across all 282 records. Anything listed as reliable you can count on; anything lower, check the council's own record before relying on it.
Once this data is connected to ChatGPT or Claude you can just ask "what information does Leicester actually fill in?" and get these same numbers back. How to connect →
| Information | Records with it | Coverage | |
|---|---|---|---|
Application typeapplication_type |
282 | 100.0% | |
Case officercase_officer |
282 | 100.0% | |
Description of the worksdescription |
282 | 100.0% | |
Date receivedreceived_date |
282 | 100.0% | |
Council referencereference |
282 | 100.0% | |
Statusstatus |
282 | 100.0% | |
Status (standardised wording)status_normalized |
282 | 100.0% | |
Wardward |
282 | 100.0% | |
Addressaddress |
281 | 99.6% | |
Who decided it (officer or committee)decision_level |
281 | 99.6% | |
Agent's nameagent_name |
280 | 99.3% |
| Information | Records with it | Coverage | |
|---|---|---|---|
Decision datedecision_date |
141 | 50.0% |
| Information | Records with it | Coverage | |
|---|---|---|---|
Decision (standardised wording)decision_normalized |
23 | 8.2% | |
Appeal decisionappeal_decision |
20 | 7.1% | |
Appeal decision (standardised wording)appeal_decision_normalized |
20 | 7.1% | |
Agent's companyagent_company |
11 | 3.9% | |
Agent's emailagent_email |
11 | 3.9% | |
Applicant's nameapplicant_name |
0 | 0.0% | |
Decisiondecision |
0 | 0.0% | |
Map coordinates (easting)easting |
0 | 0.0% | |
Map coordinates (northing)northing |
0 | 0.0% | |
Postcodepostcode |
0 | 0.0% | |
Standardised typestandard_type |
0 | 0.0% |
Leicester's portal has been verified not to publish these fields at all — different from a field that exists but is rarely filled in.
Agent's phone Alternative reference Type of development Officer's recommendation
Connect it once with your email address, then ask questions like "which extensions were refused in Leicester last year?" or "what's the planning history of this address?" — no coding, about two minutes to set up. Setup guide →
curl -H "X-Api-Key: pk_..." \ "https://ukplanningapi.co.uk/v1/applications?council_id=74&limit=5"
Council id for Leicester is 74.
Full API reference for developers →
500 lookups a month, free. No card, no password — we email you a sign-in link and you're in.