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
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 3–9 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for all 43 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 development39
  • Development plan cited33
  • Undesirable precedent cited14

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

Refusal decisions · 3–9 Aug 2026

2 of 2 cards shown · 42 case links · 43 linked projects

Refused

GLEBE, DOWNINGS, LETTERKENNY PO, Donegal

GLEBE, DOWNINGS, LETTERKENNY PO

Donegal County Council · 2661179

What was proposed

ERECTION OF A DWELLING HOUSE AND SEPTIC TANK WITH ALL ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT WORKS

Refusal reasons
  1. The application site is located within an Area Under Strong Holiday Home Influence, where proposals for one-off rural housing are required under Policy RH-P-2 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) to demonstrate an economic or social need to reside in the area. While the applicant has stated that they were born and reared in the Downings area and have longstanding family connections with the locality, the application has not been accompanied by a bona fide letter or sufficient independent documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed connection and rural housing need. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the proposed development complies with Policy RH-P-2 and the proposal would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Having regard to the significant existing pressure from one-off rural housing in the surrounding area and to the location of the site at the outer edge of an existing loose grouping of dwellings, it is considered that the proposed development would extend the existing pattern of housing into undeveloped rural lands rather than consolidate an established cluster or occupy a defined infill site. The proposal would consequently contribute to a haphazard and progressively suburban pattern of development and would erode the rural character and amenity of the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy RH-P-9(a)(i) and (iii) and Policy L-P-2 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Chief Executive’s Order 2026PH2174 — refusal schedule (scanned files)
Open official case Planning case · 2661179
Refused

DRUMLACKAGH, GLEN, CARRIGART LETTERKENNY PO, Donegal

DRUMLACKAGH, GLEN, CARRIGART LETTERKENNY PO

Donegal County Council · 2650090

What was proposed

MOBILE HOME WITH CONNECTION TO EXISTING ON-SITE SEWERAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM AND ALL ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

Refusal reasons
  1. The development comprises of the retention of a mobile home as additional residential accommodation within the curtilage of an existing renovated cottage. The mobile home is not temporary accommodation associated with the construction of a permitted dwelling and has not been demonstrated to constitute ancillary accommodation for a dependent relative in accordance with Policy RH-P-8 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied). There is no policy provision within the Plan supporting the permanent or long-term retention of a mobile home as supplementary residential or holiday accommodation within the curtilage of an existing rural dwelling. Having regard to the temporary nature and standard of the structure, the development constitutes a substandard, haphazard and unsustainable form of residential accommodation and would establish an undesirable precedent for similar development. Accordingly, the development is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The subject site is located within an area designated as Especially High Scenic Amenity under the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied). Policy L-P-1 seeks to protect such areas and provides that only developments of strategic importance, or developments provided for by another policy of the Plan, may be considered. Policy RH-P-9 also requires rural residential development to be sensitively designed and capable of effective assimilation into the receiving landscape. By reason of its temporary form, external appearance, proportions and absence of architectural quality or vernacular character, the mobile home fails to integrate with the restored traditional cottage or the character and amenity of the receiving landscape. Its retention would detract from the visual amenities and rural character of this sensitive area and would establish an undesirable precedent for similar substandard development. The proposal therefore contravenes Policies L-P-1 and RH-P-9 and is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. It is a policy of the Planning Authority under Policy RH-P-9(b)(iv) of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied) to require the safe and efficient disposal of effluent in a manner that does not pose a risk to public health and accords with the applicable Environmental Protection Agency Code of Practice. The proposed mobile home is to connect to the wastewater treatment system previously permitted to serve the renovated cottage under Plan Ref. 24/50156. In the absence of technical information demonstrating that the existing system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional hydraulic and organic loading arising from the mobile home, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that effluent can be safely and effectively treated and dispersed within the site. Accordingly, the development would be prejudicial to public health, would contravene Policy RH-P-9 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Chief Executive’s Order 2026PH2170 — refusal schedule (scanned files)
Open official case Planning case · 2650090