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
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for all 69 refusals this week. Every figure comes from the official refusal reasons.

A reason can support more than one theme. Counts show affected applications and published reason statements.

Standard statutory conclusions are tracked separately and are not treated as refusal causes on their own.

  • Proper planning and sustainable development59
  • Development plan cited55
  • Undesirable precedent cited24

1 published reason statement did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026

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

Refused

Lismeehy, Strokestown, Co. Roscommon., Roscommon

Lismeehy, Strokestown, Co. Roscommon.

Roscommon County Council · 2660160

What was proposed

Permission to construct domestic dwelling house along with domestic garage, new treatment system and percolation area and all ancillary site development works at

Refusal reason

Having regard to the site characteristics, the results of the probe testing carried out and the site location in an area of extreme groundwater vulnerability, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the subject site is suitable for the safe disposal of effluent in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Code of Practice: Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (P.E≤ 10) (2021). The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official refusal decision — published grounds
Open official case Not linked yet