Waterford City and County Council · 2560581
Latest linked evidence
2560581 · Permission refused
This page connects records for one planning case. Separate permissions, amendments and phases may belong to a wider development. A notified commencement date does not confirm that building work started.
Reviewed build intelligence
Government document review
The council refused the proposal on 20 August 2026. The refusal describes 86 homes and a 219.3 m² creche; the later FI layout has a different 88-unit schedule. Neither is approved residential supply.
3 official documents inspected · Checked 2026-09-07 · Official file index
Refusal under this application only
What the evidence says
The refusal dated 20 August describes 86 homes, a 219.3 m² creche and associated infrastructure. It gives two substantive grounds concerning drainage connections and the detention basin. This is a refused proposal, not an active permission for new housing.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Planning, civil and ecology advisers have defined issues to resolve before a revised proposal could progress.
What is not established
A successful appeal, replacement permission and commencement are not established.
Notification of decision to refuse permission · p.1
Notification of decision to refuse: 86 dwellings and 219.3 m² creche · Issued 2026-08-20 · Refusal dated 20 August; further information received 28 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Notification of decision to refuse: 86 dwellings and 219.3 m² creche
Notification of decision to refuse permission · p.3
First Schedule: two reasons for refusal · Issued 2026-08-20 · Refusal dated 20 August; further information received 28 July · Checked 2026-09-07
First Schedule: two reasons for refusal
Council refusal ground; July revision is evidence of the submitted proposal, not acceptance
What the evidence says
The first refusal ground treats the FI boundary changes needed for public-network connections as a fundamental change that cannot be considered through significant further information. It also rejects the original storm-water pumping station and rising-main approach, finding that an adequate storm connection and service-diversion feasibility to Uisce Eireann satisfaction were not demonstrated.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Civil and utility teams need a feasible network connection and a valid planning scope before pricing a deliverable drainage solution.
What is not established
Accepted diversion arrangements, public-network capacity, connection agreements and an approved replacement drainage design are not established.
Notification of decision to refuse permission · p.3
Reason 1: boundary revision, storm pumping and connection/service-diversion feasibility · Issued 2026-08-20 · Refusal dated 20 August; further information received 28 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Reason 1: boundary revision, storm pumping and connection/service-diversion feasibility
Proposed foul and surface-water layout · p.1
Drawing 020 revision B: foul and surface-water connection layout · Issued 2026-07-20 · Garland M1094 drawing 020 revision B; received 21 July; planning application · Checked 2026-09-07
Drawing 020 revision B: foul and surface-water connection layout
Refusal ground on the submitted drainage and landscape arrangement
What the evidence says
The second refusal ground finds the basin behind two apartment blocks poorly integrated with open space. It identifies steps and temporary water depth as maintenance-access, amenity and safety problems, and says the arrangement fails the four SuDS objectives. The July layouts show the basin beside the apartment and open-space area.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Drainage, landscape and ecology specialists need to coordinate access, safe ponding and usable amenity space in any redesign.
What is not established
An accepted basin redesign, maintenance strategy, safety assessment and revised landscape approval are not established.
Notification of decision to refuse permission · p.3
Reason 2: detention basin, steps, water depth, maintenance and four SuDS objectives · Issued 2026-08-20 · Refusal dated 20 August; further information received 28 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Reason 2: detention basin, steps, water depth, maintenance and four SuDS objectives
Proposed site layout, sheet 1 of 3 · p.1
PP-01.1A: apartment blocks and detention-basin/open-space arrangement · Issued July 2026 (month only) · PP-01.1A, project 24029, July 2026; received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
PP-01.1A: apartment blocks and detention-basin/open-space arrangement
Proposed foul and surface-water layout · p.1
Drawing 020 revision B: detention basin and SuDS layout · Issued 2026-07-20 · Garland M1094 drawing 020 revision B; received 21 July; planning application · Checked 2026-09-07
Drawing 020 revision B: detention basin and SuDS layout
Unreconciled submitted schedule versus later refusal description
What the evidence says
The July site-layout schedule totals 88 units, comprising 67 houses and 21 apartments. The August refusal still describes 86 dwellings. These are different document scopes and do not establish an approved increase.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Planning and quantity teams should reconcile the actual scheme version before preparing a revised application or using the drawing for supply totals.
What is not established
An agreed reconciliation of the unit schedules and a permission authorising either configuration are not established.
Proposed site layout, sheet 1 of 3 · p.1
PP-01.1A development schedule: 88 units, 67 houses and 21 apartments · Issued July 2026 (month only) · PP-01.1A, project 24029, July 2026; received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
PP-01.1A development schedule: 88 units, 67 houses and 21 apartments
Notification of decision to refuse permission · p.1
Refusal proposal description: 86 residential units · Issued 2026-08-20 · Refusal dated 20 August; further information received 28 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Refusal proposal description: 86 residential units
The declared pages of these government-published PDFs were visually inspected. Other catalogue files, later compliance, procurement and installed specifications were not established. Historical weekly membership is retained separately from these document dates.
Source history
2560581
2560581
Permission refused
Only exact linked records appear here. A missing appeal, commencement or completion entry means that evidence has not been established on this page. It does not prove that the event never happened.
Planning scale and individual notice or phase quantities remain separate. Notice quantities are not added into a development total or completion percentage.