Refusal decisions · 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026

69Refusals
69Substantive reasons
0Verification only
0Document not published
0Portal unavailable
0Manual review

9 of these refusals have page-cited grounds from a checked review. Browse the decision-date inventory.

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 lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable.

69 of 69 records carry official reason text

139 published statements, 2.0 per analysed application

34 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 23 Design + Residential amenity
  2. 23 Design + Zoning/policy
  3. 21 Design + Transport/access

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 41
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 33
  3. 03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 30
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 27
  5. 05 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 26
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 20
  7. 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 19
  8. 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 13
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 12
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 7

Refusal decisions · 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 66 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

MARKET SQUARE, ARDARAVAN, BUNCRANA LIFFORD PO, Donegal

MARKET SQUARE, ARDARAVAN, BUNCRANA LIFFORD PO

Donegal County Council · 2660071

What was proposed

MINOR ALTERATION TO CONDITION NO. 2 OF THE GRANTED PLANNING REF. NO. 23/51183, FOR THE CHANGE OF HOURS OF OPERATION TO EXTEND TO 4AM AT WEEKENDS AND PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

Refusal reason

It is a policy of the Buncrana Town Plan, 2024-2030 (Policy TC-G-P-4 refers) to ‘Consider proposals for food take-away units, bookmakers, amusement arcades, and casinos within the ‘Urban Core’ zoning provided that they: (a) Are not located within or abutting premises consisting of residential accommodation, schools or religious institutions. (b) Do not contribute to the over concentration of such uses in a given area which would result in excessive noise, litter and anti-social hours of operation; and (c) Do not detract from the streetscape and vitality and viability of the area.’ On the basis of the information submitted, which (i) fails to clarify the permitted use/s of the upper second and third floor areas above ground floor units in the overall building previously indicated as residential in historical applications and (ii) otherwise seeks permanent excessive late opening hours on the basis of an heretofore unapproved late-night licence from a third party premises as an acceptable rational for same, the Planning Authority are not satisfied that the application has sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the above policy or otherwise presented a valid planning rationale for same. Accordingly, to permit the development on as proposed would materially contravene the aforementioned policy, would set an undesirable precedent for future forms of similar development and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Chief Executive’s Order 2026PH2075 — refusal schedule (scanned files)
Open official case Not linked yet