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

Ballykilcavan, Stradbally, Co. Laois, Laois

Ballykilcavan, Stradbally, Co. Laois

Laois County Council · 2660287

What was proposed

construct an agricultural entrance (cow crossing), necessary signage and associated site work at Ballykilcavan, Stradbally, Co. Laois.

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the unavailability of the required 3 metre x 180 metre sight lines to the nearside edge of the road at the location of the site entrance onto the R428 to comply with the Laois County Council Roads & Parking Standards 2007, the proposed access would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and the obstruction of road users and, would therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development is proposed onto the Strategic Regional Route (R428) where the maximum speed limits apply. Policy TRANS 22 of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027 seeks to “Prohibit unnecessary access onto strategic regional routes in areas where speed limits in excess of 50kmph applies”. The proposed development materially contravenes this policy of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. The proposal, if granted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar development and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. L a o i s C o u n t y C o u n c i l P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y, V i e w i n g P u r p o s e s O n l y !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660287
Refused

Cloncannon, Mountmellick, County Laois, Laois

Cloncannon, Mountmellick, County Laois

Laois County Council · 2660193

What was proposed

retain change of use of shed Nr.1 from domestic to agricultural machinery repair and welding to include for retention of a covered area for 1 Nr. vehicle (R1). Retention for the part change of use of shed Nr.2 from domestic to agricultural machinery repair and welding, (use ancillary to shed Nr.1). Retention of extension to shed Nr.2 (R2) and all associated site works.

Refusal reason

It is a requirement of Policy DM RL 2 that justification be provided for locating commercial development in the rural area over a settlement where adequate zoning is in place. It is considered that there are no specific locational requirements of the development that justify or necessitate its location in the rural area. Furthermore, having regard to the specific nature of the development and proximity of the adjacent residential property, it is considered that the ongoing operation of the development would be injurious to residential amenity by reason of noise and disturbance. It is therefore considered that the development is contrary to Policy DM RL 2 (11) and (12) of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027, that it is not considered an appropriate rural commercial enterprise in this location, and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. L a o i s C o u n t y C o u n c i l P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y, V i e w i n g P u r p o s e s O n l y !

Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660193