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

Golden Island Shopping Centre Car Park, Athlone, Westmeath, Westmeath

Golden Island Shopping Centre Car Park, Athlone, Westmeath

Westmeath County Council · 2660308

What was proposed

development which will consist of: Alterations to the previously approved application granted under Reg. Ref. 21/93 for the following works: (i) construction of a drive-thru to serve the approved coffee shop; (ii) alterations to all external facades to alter glazing, material finishes, opes, and to provide for a collection point; (iii) provision of signage associated with drive-thru; (iv) alterations to internal layout of approved coffee shop; (v) provision of pedestrian access onto MacDiarmada Road and provision of pedestrian crossing to Burgess Park; (vi) relocation of mobility parking spaces and bike parking; (vii) removal of approved outdoor seating area and the provision of a new outdoor seating area along the eastern façade; (viii) landscaping, boundary treatments, signage, drainage and all ancillary works necessary to facilitate the development

Refusal reason

The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed drive-through coffee shop would not adversely affect traffic circulation, pedestrian safety or the efficient operation of the Golden Island Shopping Centre road n etwork. The submitted Transport Assessment does not provide adequate quantitative evidence, including traffic generation, queueing or operational analysis, to substantiate its conclusion that the proposal would have no material traffic impact. Furthermore, by reason of its inherently car-dependent nature, the proposed development would encourage additional private vehicle trips at a centrally located site where sustainable modes of travel should be prioritised. The proposal would reinforce reliance on private car use, undermine the transition to sustainable mobility and a low-carbon pattern of development, and is therefore contrary to the sustainable transport and climate action objectives of the National Planning Framework, including National Po licy Objectives 37, 66, 69 and 93, the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021–2027, and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

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