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

2 of 2 cards shown · 66 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

18-21 Leaca, Adamstown, Kilmeaden, Waterford

18-21 Leaca, Adamstown, Kilmeaden

Waterford City and County Council · 2660432

What was proposed

Cosmo Developments Kilmeaden Limited intends to apply for Permission for development and for Retention Permission for Development, respectively, in relation to four partially constructed two-storey semi-detached houses, identified as Nos. 18 (Eircode X91 AW8E) and 19 (Eircode X91 X4PV), and Nos. 20 (Eircode X91 CYR0) and 21 (Eircode X91 NXE0), Leaca, Adamstown, Kilmeaden, Co. Waterford. The Application focuses on an area of 865sq.m on an overall Development site of 1.24 hectares. The overall site is currently under construction, with the residual 25 No. permitted units (houses and an apartment block, respectively) at various stages of completion. The development for which Retention Permission for Development is sought consists of all amendments to the approved floor plans, internal layouts, servicing above and below ground, and elevations and heights relative to Ordnance Datum of House Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21, respectively, as constructed relative to the development previously permitted under An Bord Pleanála Reference ABP-310803-21 (Waterford County Council Register Reference 20/400) for the total site. (No. 12 Leaca was permitted separately under WCC Reg. Ref. 2560094.) The development for which Permission for Development is sought will consist of revised boundary treatments, hard and soft landscaping, drainage, service connections and all associated site development works within the curtilage of Houses Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Refusal reason

It is considered that the dwellings to be retained, by reason of bulk, scale, height and relationship to neighbouring houses, would, given difference in site levels, constitute an over-dominating presence in relation to adjoining residential property which would seriously injure the residential amenities of the area by reason of visual obtrusiveness and over-bearing impact. Retention of the development as constructed would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

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

Adamstown, Kilmeaden, Co. Waterford, Waterford

Adamstown, Kilmeaden, Co. Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2660

What was proposed

For the construction of a new single storey detached dwelling house, the removal of an existing shed and the provision of a new vehicular entrance and access road, boundary treatments and all ancillary and associated site and & drainage works.

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the location and characteristics of the site it is considered that the proposed development by reason of its backland nature and proximityto the built- up area would represent uncoordinated and ad-hoc development on a site abutting the rural village and could prejudice the orderly and sustainable development of Kilmeaden village. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development is located in an area identified as an 'Area Under Strong Urban Influence'in theWaterford City&County Development Plan2022-2028. Based on the information submitted, owing to the identified location of the applicant's family home within the settlement of Kilmeaden, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal constitutes a Local Rural Housing Need in accordance with Section 7.11.2 of the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Waterford City and County Development Plan 2022-2028, and as such would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official refusal decision — published grounds
Open official case Not linked yet