Latest refusal decisions.

51Refusals
37Case links
20Lead matches
15Counties

What this means

Applications were most often refused because the proposal did not fit its site or surroundings, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy, created access or road-safety problems, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes or involved unauthorised works or retention.

20 of 51 records carry official reason text

30 published statements, 1.5 per analysed application

7 refused on more than one ground, up to 3

Most common pairs

  1. 7 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 7 Residential amenity + Zoning/policy
  3. 6 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 12
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 10
  3. 03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 9
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 9
  5. 05 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 6
  6. 06 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 3
  7. 07 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 3
  8. 08 Built heritage or archaeology 2
  9. 09 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 1
  10. 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 0

Refusals published 27 Jul 2026–2 Aug 2026

1 of 1 matching records shown

Refused

Doonbeg Village, Doonbeg, Co. Clare, Clare

Doonbeg Village, Doonbeg, Co. Clare

Clare County Council · 2560473

What was proposed

for the construction of 24 dwelling houses with reserved open space, car and bicycle parking, access roads, footpaths, boundaries, hard and soft landscaped areas, connections to public sewer and stormwater, public lighting and all ancillary services along with all associated site works

Refusal evidence

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

Open official case No PlanningBrief match