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

Maherabeg, Castlegregory, Co. Kerry, Kerry

Maherabeg, Castlegregory, Co. Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660527

What was proposed

retention permission to retain a) existing mobile home on site, b) existing entrance and driveway, and planning permission to c) install a mechanical treatment unit and polishing filter and d) all associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. The proposed development is in an area which is at risk of flooding. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the effluent arising from the proposed development could be adequately disposed of on site. The proposed development would, therefore, be prejudicial to public health. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  4. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that a rural housing need has been demonstrated in accordance with Objective KCDP 5-15 Rural Settlement Policy of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 having regard to the location of the application site in an area designated a Rural Area under Urban Influence. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  5. In the absence of an Appropriate Assessment Screening Report, the Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the proposed development would not have significant effects on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  6. The site of the proposed development is located in a sensitive coastal environment zoned Visually Sensitive in the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. It is considered that the proposed development would interfere with the character of the landscape in this area, which is necessary to preserve, in accordance with Objective KCDP 11-78 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would set an undesirable precedent for further similar type developments in the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K e r r y P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y - I n s p e c t i o n P u r p o s e s O n l y !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660527
Refused

Martramane, Castlegregory, Co. Kerry, Kerry

Martramane, Castlegregory, Co. Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660525

What was proposed

to build 2 no. private dwellings served by individual Tertiary Treatment systems and infiltration / treatment areas and all associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. The proposed development would be unduly obtrusive by virtue of its visual impact on the landscape and would interfere with the rural character of the landscape, which is necessary to preserve, in accordance with Objective KCDP 11-78 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area
  3. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that a rural housing need has been demonstrated for 2 no. dwelling houses in accordance with Objective KCDP 5-15 Rural Settlement Policy of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 having regard to the location of the application site in an area designated a Rural Area under Urban Influence. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  4. Having regard to the soil conditions on site, the Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the effluent arising from the proposed development could be adequately disposed of on site. The proposed development would, therefore, be prejudicial to public health. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  5. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the proposed development would not create a traffic hazard. It is considered that traffic movements generated by the proposed development on a road along where sight distances are restricted, would interfere with the safety and free-flow of traffic on that road. The proposed development would, therefore, endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and an obstruction to road users. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area K e r r y P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y - I n s p e c t i o n P u r p o s e s O n l y !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660525