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
- 23 Design + Residential amenity
- 23 Design + Zoning/policy
- 21 Design + Transport/access
All ten refusal themes
Applications · statements- 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 41
- 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 33
- 03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 30
- 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 27
- 05 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 26
- 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 20
- 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 19
- 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 13
- 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 12
- 10 Built heritage or archaeology 7
Refusal decisions · 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026
0 of 0 cards shown · 66 case links · 0 linked projects