Refusal decisions · 3–9 Aug 2026

43Refusals
43Substantive reasons
0Verification only
0Document not published
0Portal unavailable
0Manual review

37 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, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable or harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes.

43 of 43 records carry official reason text

79 published statements, 1.8 per analysed application

21 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 16 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 14 Design + Transport/access
  3. 11 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 28
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 19
  3. 03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 19
  4. 04 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 17
  5. 05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 16
  6. 06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 15
  7. 07 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 15
  8. 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 6
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 6
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 4

Refusal decisions · 3–9 Aug 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 42 case links · 43 linked projects

Refused

Lisheen, Ballynacally, Co. Clare, Clare

Lisheen, Ballynacally, Co. Clare

Clare County Council · 2660386

What was proposed

to construct 2 No. detached dwellinghouses, detached garages, advanced wastewater treatment systems with soil polishing filters together with all associated site development works and connections to services

Refusal reasons
  1. The subject development is located off the R473 Regional Road, where a speed limit of 80kph applies, where there are horizontal and vertical curves on the road, and where there is a straight white line along the centre of the road. It is considered that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard on the R473 Regional Road because of the proposed provision of two access points where sight lines are restricted to the northeast by reason of the road alignment and where the additional traffic movements to which the development would give rise would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the Regional road. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  2. It is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its location on the estuary side of the R473 where there are uninterrupted views to the estuary from the public road, would be contrary to the Objective CDP 14.5 'Heritage landscapes' which requires that sites have been selected to avoid visually prominent locations. The selection of the site in the first instance, and the location of the dwellings on the estuary side of the road, notwithstanding being within a designated Cluster, contravenes this objective. The proposed development would therefore be injurious to the visual amenities and rural character of the landscape, would set an undesirable precedent for further developments at this location and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Chief Executive’s Order — refusal schedule