Clare County Council refused application 2660445 at Corebeg, Doora on 31 August 2026. The signed order gives four reasons covering road access, landscape and scale, bat habitat and archaeology. This refused proposal is not an active supply opportunity.
Refusal ground 1: ribbon development and road safety
Refused on 31 August 2026 · The proposed dwelling, garage, entrance and associated services in Clare application 2660445, refused on 31 August 2026; no later permission or active works inferred.
What the evidence says
The Council found that a further access point on the LP4112 would extend undesirable ribbon development and that associated traffic would adversely affect road safety and free flow.
Clare application 2660445 only; refused proposal, not approved or active supply work.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For planners and road designers: the decision identifies access strategy and the cumulative pattern of development as constraints on any future evidenced revision.
What is not established
A redesigned access, accepted road-safety assessment, later approval or available civil-works package is not established.
Inspect the evidence
Chief Executive Order 8842: refusal of P26/60445 · p.1
Reasons for refusal: numbered ground 1 · Issued 2026-08-31 · Signed Chief Executive Order 8842, dated 31 August 2026; P26/60445; full two-page refusal schedule · Checked 2026-09-07
undesirable ribbon development
Refusal ground 2: landscape and dwelling scale
Refused on 31 August 2026 · The proposed dwelling, garage, entrance and associated services in Clare application 2660445, refused on 31 August 2026; no later permission or active works inferred.
What the evidence says
The Council considered the elevated siting, height, bulk and massing visually obtrusive in the Western Corridor Working Landscape and harmful to the rural landscape character.
Clare application 2660445 only; refused proposal, not approved or active supply work.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For architects and landscape designers: the refusal identifies siting and massing, as well as form, finishes and colours, as design constraints.
What is not established
No later reduced design, agreed materials schedule or approval of the proposed dwelling is established.
Inspect the evidence
Chief Executive Order 8842: refusal of P26/60445 · p.1
Reasons for refusal: numbered ground 2 · Issued 2026-08-31 · Signed Chief Executive Order 8842, dated 31 August 2026; P26/60445; full two-page refusal schedule · Checked 2026-09-07
visually obtrusive feature
Refusal ground 3: bat habitat and the nearby SAC
Refused on 31 August 2026 · The proposed dwelling, garage, entrance and associated services in Clare application 2660445, refused on 31 August 2026; no later permission or active works inferred.
What the evidence says
The order finds that removing and setting back the roadside boundary would cause a net loss of potential Lesser Horseshoe Bat feeding habitat, treelines and hedgerows within 2.5 km of the Keevagh roost, with likely adverse effects on its Special Area of Conservation.
Clare application 2660445 only; refused proposal, not approved or active supply work.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For ecologists and landscape/civil designers: boundary changes need to be understood as habitat changes, rather than merely an access or fencing detail.
What is not established
An accepted habitat-retention or mitigation design, a later conservation assessment or permission for revised works is not established.
Inspect the evidence
Chief Executive Order 8842: refusal of P26/60445 · p.2
Reasons for refusal: numbered ground 3 · Issued 2026-08-31 · Signed Chief Executive Order 8842, dated 31 August 2026; P26/60445; full two-page refusal schedule · Checked 2026-09-07
Lesser Horseshoe Bat feeding habitats
Refusal ground 4: archaeological potential
Refused on 31 August 2026 · The proposed dwelling, garage, entrance and associated services in Clare application 2660445, refused on 31 August 2026; no later permission or active works inferred.
What the evidence says
The proposed works partly fall within the zone of archaeological potential for recorded monument CL034-105. The Council found that groundworks for boundary treatments and planting could adversely affect undiscovered remains.
Clare application 2660445 only; refused proposal, not approved or active supply work.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For archaeologists and civil/landscape designers: even boundary and planting works may require archaeological evidence before a revised proposal can be assessed.
What is not established
An archaeological resolution, accepted revised groundworks, later approval or construction activity is not established.
Inspect the evidence
Chief Executive Order 8842: refusal of P26/60445 · p.2
Reasons for refusal: numbered ground 4 · Issued 2026-08-31 · Signed Chief Executive Order 8842, dated 31 August 2026; P26/60445; full two-page refusal schedule · Checked 2026-09-07
potential undiscovered archaeological remains
Both pages of the final signed refusal order were visually reviewed and matched to Clare application P26/60445 and the 31 August 2026 decision. These four findings describe reasons for refusal, not permitted or installed works. The official case page showed no recorded appeal at review; a later appeal, revised permission, commencement or completion is not established by this document. Existing selected-week membership and project quantities are unchanged.