Latest refusal decisions.

51Refusals
37Case links
20Lead matches
15Counties

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 involved unauthorised works or retention.

20 of 51 records carry official reason text

30 published statements, 1.5 per analysed application

7 refused on more than one ground, up to 3

Most common pairs

  1. 7 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 7 Residential amenity + Zoning/policy
  3. 6 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 12
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 10
  3. 03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 9
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 9
  5. 05 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 6
  6. 06 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 3
  7. 07 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 3
  8. 08 Built heritage or archaeology 2
  9. 09 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 1
  10. 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 0
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Reporting window 27 Jul 2026–2 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 20 of 51 records in this weekly snapshot. Every figure is calculated offline from official refusal reason text retained in this snapshot.

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 development17
  • Development plan cited16
  • Undesirable precedent cited14

2 published reason statements did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusals published 27 Jul 2026–2 Aug 2026

0 of 0 matching records shown