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

Refusal decisions · 27 Jul–2 Aug 2026

7 of 7 cards shown · 66 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Nemestown, Kilmore, Wexford

Nemestown, Kilmore

Wexford County Council · 20260752

What was proposed

Permission for the erection of a fully serviced self-contained living unit on

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development of a self contained unit within the rear garden of the applicant is not in accordance with the policy as set out in Section 3.3 'Self-contained Residential Unit for a Family Member' contained in Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. The development is therefore contrary to this policy and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate a need for such a unit in accordance with the requirement as set out in Section 4.9.5, Volume One of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. The development is therefore contrary to this policy and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Inadequate information has been provided with regards to the proposed access arrangements, parking and surface water drainage capabilities of the site to enable the Planning Authority to adequately assess the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development would therefore be considered prejudicial to traffic safety, public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Raheenduff, Adamstown, Wexford

Raheenduff, Adamstown

Wexford County Council · 20260751

What was proposed

Permission to erect a serviced dwellinghouse and to carry out associated

Refusal reasons
  1. Section 3.1.3 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 requires that all proposed dwellings should be capable of being sited in such a way as to ensure that no undue loss of privacy occurs for adjoining properties, nor that the access arrangements would give rise to a detraction of residential amenity or traffic safety for adjoining properties. The proposed development, by virtue of its positioning to the rear of an existing house and where the access way is traversing through the site of an established residential property, would give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy for the existing dwelling located west of the proposed development, which would be detrimental to the enjoyment and residential amenities of that existing dwelling. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the policies and objectives of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development can be safely accessed from the public road, where sightlines of 65m in each direction from a 3.0m setback are required where a shared entrance is proposed. Furthermore, the need for a shared entrance is not established, and the access proposals included within the application would give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy and residential amenity to that existing residential property. Where the sightlines are not readily available or achievable, and in the absence of sufficient information on the surface water management measures for the proposed shared access, the proposed development may be prejudicial to public health by reason of a traffic hazard, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official refusal decision — published grounds
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Ballylibernagh, Bridgetown, Wexford

Ballylibernagh, Bridgetown

Wexford County Council · 20260744

What was proposed

Permission for the opening of a new agricultural entrance

Refusal reason

The site of the proposed development is located on a heavily trafficked regional road at a point where the maximum speed limit applies and the proposed development would give rise to dangerous traffic turning movements onto and off the regional road and would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard. The proposed development would contravene Objective TS73 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 which seeks to restrict the proliferation of new access points onto regional roads.

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

Hayestown, Whitechurch, Wexford

Hayestown, Whitechurch

Wexford County Council · 20260737

What was proposed

Permission for the following: 1. Retention of existing vehicle recovery facility

Refusal reasons
  1. The application site is located on a County Road where, in accordance with Volume One, Section 8.7.3 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, a minimum of 65m sightlines in both directions are required. It has not been demonstrated that adequate sightlines are available or that they can be achieved at the proposed access / egress point without major realignment works to the southeast of the entrance. In the absence of a suitable means of vehicular access to the site, it is considered that the development as proposed fails to satisfy the requirements of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, interferes with and endangers public safety by way of a traffic safety hazard, would interfere with the free flow of traffic and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The Planning Authority is not satisfied based on the information submitted that adequate provision has been made for the treatment of effluent on site. In the absence of such information, the proposal could give rise to the pollution of the groundwater and surface water networks in the lands. It is also contrary to the guidance contained within Volume Two (Development Management Manual), Sections 5.1 for and 5.1.1 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 (Requirements for all Developments) which require that adequate details be provided with all planning application and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area if permitted.
Official refusal decision — published grounds
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Assaly Little, Killinick, Wexford

Assaly Little, Killinick

Wexford County Council · 20210946

What was proposed

Permission for the proposed erection of 2 no. fully serviced dwelling houses tog

Refusal reason

This application must be assessed under Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended). From a site inspection carried out, I am satisfied that substantial works have not been carried out to date. The Planning Authority is therefore precluded from extending the appropriate period of planning permission 20210946E. There also seems to be unauthorized works on site in what appears to be a cabin on site which is considered not to have the benefit of permission. Having regard to the above and all the details submitted, it is recommended that this application for a Section 42 extension of duration of planning permission be refused as there is no provision for extending the appropriate period without substantial works been carried out.

Planner’s report — refusal conclusion and recommendation, page 7; Chief Executive’s Order P.0964/26 confirms refusal
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Glaslacken, St Mary's, Wexford

Glaslacken, St Mary's

Wexford County Council · 20260738

What was proposed

Permission for retention of existing dwelling house previously granted under

Refusal reason

The application site is located within the 'Uplands Landscape' of the County, which is one of the areas that is 'afforded a high level of protection' under the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. Under the requirements of Point 4, Table 4-6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, an applicant must never have previously owned a rural house to qualify for a new rural house in this type of rural area. The applicant in this instance has previously owned a rural house. Whilst exceptions to this requirement do exist, the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with any of these exceptions. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Rural Housing Policy as set out in Section 4.9 and Table 4-6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area if supported.

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

Starvehall, Drinagh, Wexford

Starvehall, Drinagh

Wexford County Council · 20260734

What was proposed

Permission for the opening of a new agricultural entrance

Refusal reason

Retention permission is not sought for an access point which has already been constructed. The Planning Authority therefore cannot properly determine an application which does not fully and accurately describe the nature of the development on site and for which permission is sought.

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