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
Refused
Drumlahard, Leitrim Village, Co. Roscommon, Roscommon
Retention Permission for single storey extensions to single storey detached dwelling house at
Refusal reason
The development which is proposed to be retained is dependent on a wastewater treatment system and percolation area for which there is no record of planning permission and in addition, where it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the existing WWTS is adequate or functioning in accordance with provisions of the relevant EPA Codes of Practice. It has not therefore been demonstrated that appropriate, authorised infrastructure is in place to attenuate and dispose of wastewater safely and in accordance with EPA Code of Practice - Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent ≤10) (2021). It is therefore considered that the development has the potential to be injurious to public health. The proposed development would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. An
Permission for change of use of vacant shop unit and dwelling to two residential town houses, demolish domestic garage, reconstruction works and alterations to building, construct a single storey extension and all associated site works at
Refusal reasons
Having regard to the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment submitted which confirms the site is located on un-zoned lands in Flood Zone A, it is considered that the proposed extension and the associated development of an additional residential unit, being a ‘highly vulnerable use’ as set out in the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009), would be contrary to the said Guidelines. As the proposed development is in an area at risk of flooding and the potential risks of flooding cannot be ruled out, the proposed development would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Having regard to the fact that a primary risk factor identified in the submitted Natura Impact Statement in relation to the River Suck Callows SPA is a ‘deterioration in the quality due to pollution’, when taken in conjunction with the outcome of the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment submitted (which concludes the site is in Flood Zone A), it cannot be concluded that all potential environmental impacts have been or can be sufficiently and appropriately mitigated against, including but not limited to impacts on protected species and designated sites. On the basis of information provided and as reflected in the conclusion reached in the Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment undertaken by Roscommon County Council as the Competent Authority, it cannot be concluded that this development would not unduly impact upon the receiving natural environment and its associated flora and fauna, and in particular that the proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects would not adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (River Suck Callows SPA) having regard to the conservation objectives of the site.
The proposed development, in the site-specific context in which it is proposed, fails to make sufficient provision for on-site car parking and associated vehicular circulation. The proposed development has the potential to generate on-street parking, at the junction of the private lane with the N63 national secondary route and the R362 regional route and would also intensify vehicular turning movements a, ! this busy junction. The proposed development therefore has the potential to endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users and would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.