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
1 of 1 cards shown · 42 case links · 43 linked projects
Refused
Muingerroon South, Barnatra, Ballina Co. Mayo, Mayo
The development will consist of the retention of existing dwelling house previous planning granted under P80/1155 including retention of shed, existing access, boundaries and all other associated works and services
Refusal reason
The development to be retained, notwithstanding the revisions proposed during the course of the application, does not meet minimum standards for access visibility as per Section 7.6, Volume 2 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise and is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. END OF SCHEDUL !