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
16 Design + Zoning/policy
14 Design + Transport/access
11 Design + Residential amenity
All ten refusal themes
Applications · statements
01Design, scale, character or visual impact28
02Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need19
03Traffic, access, parking or road safety19
04Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail17
05Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise16
06Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health15
07Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history15
08Surface-water drainage or flood risk6
09Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts6
10Built heritage or archaeology4
Refusal decisions · 3–9 Aug 2026
2 of 2 cards shown · 42 case links · 43 linked projects
for: office unit with access ramp (17.3sqm), vehicular entrance from public road (L2632-37) with associated entrance gate and piers, front boundary timber post and wire fencing; connection to existing wastewater treatment system, drainage; and all associated and ancillary works
Refusal reason
Within the statutory timeframe for decision, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that noise arising from operational activities on site have been adequately assessed in accordance with best practice noise guidelines and as such adverse impacts on the adjoining residential areas properties cannot be properly quantified. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal will impact and seriously injure the amenities, or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development is therefore considered an unacceptable risk to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K i l k e n n y C o u n t y C o u n c i l - V i e w i n g P u r p o s e s O n l y !
for Development at the Existing IMC Cinema Complex. The development will consist of the following: 1. Construction and provision of a part two-storey and part single-storey fast food restaurant with ‘drive thru’ facility. 2. Illuminated external restaurant signage. 3. Erection of an entrance height restrictor with signage. 4. 1 no. illuminated free standing menu display sign. 5. 2 no. ordering kiosks. 6. Driveway with access point off the existing private car park. 7. 2 no. parking bays. 8. Outdoor seating area. 9. Construction and provision a single storey retail unit. 10. Illuminated external retail unit signage. 11. Alterations to the existing carpark layout and all associated site works
Refusal reasons
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development, which includes a drive through restaurant, has the queuing capacity at times of peak traffic generation to accommodate expected queues and will not affect the existing car-park entrance, pedestrian routes or the public road. It is further considered that the applicant has failed to prove that the inclusion of a car-based drive through restaurant on the edge of this City Centre site would not lead to unnecessary vehicular trip generation and would not attract unnecessary through traffic to this area which, in combination with concerns about queues blocking the car park entrance and spilling out onto the public road, will add to the creation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic hazards and will be contrary to the long-term proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development, which includes provision for extensive vehicle queues and light stands, will not lead to excessive noise, fumes and light spillage such as would have adverse impacts on the residential properties directly adjacent. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the long-term health and welfare of neighbouring residential units and will negatively impact their amenity and devalue their property.
The proposed development has inadequate setback to allow for provision of orbital cycle track to facilitate two phase crossings, protected corner islands or set-back crossings as per Protected T-Junction, TL504 or Protected T-Junction with full signal control, TL505, Cycle Design Manual. !