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
01Design, scale, character or visual impact41
02Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need33
03Traffic, access, parking or road safety30
04Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise27
05Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail26
06Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history20
07Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health19
08Surface-water drainage or flood risk13
09Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts12
10Built heritage or archaeology7
Refusal decisions · 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026
2 of 2 cards shown · 66 case links · 0 linked projects
Refused
Lackabrack, Killoscully, Newport, Tipperary
Lackabrack, Killoscully, Newport
Tipperary County Council · 2670
What was proposed
change of design and position of single storey domestic garage as granted under planning application 16600291 and permission for change of use of a section of the garage into a commercial coffee station and all associated site works
Refusal reason
It cannot be concluded that the development under Pl Ref 21/762 was commenced and substantial works were carried out pursuant to this permission. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 42(1) (a) (i) parts (I) & (III) of the Planni ng and Development Act 2000, as amended.
the demolition of an existing boundary wall, extension of existing hard surfaced area and erection of new boundary wall to the rear of surgery
Refusal reasons
The nature and extent of the proposed hardstanding and the stated use of the area for car parking.
The significant level of ground excavation required and design of the boundary treatment proposals.
The development location relative to an adjoining residential property. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that a clear and demonstrated need has been provided for the development proposed, in particular the requirement for the 2 way circulation route serving the proposed parking spaces. Furthermore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development is visually acceptable for the site and would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the residential property that adjoins the site. The proposed development is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.