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

1 of 1 cards shown · 42 case links · 43 linked projects

Refused

Kilkenny West, Glasson, Athlone, Westmeath

Kilkenny West, Glasson, Athlone

Westmeath County Council · 2616

What was proposed

EXTENSION OF DURATION - Dwelling, sewage treatment system, percolation area, domestic garage and ancillary works

Refusal reason

Having considered the application for an extension of the appropriate period of Planning Permission Ref. 21/173 under Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the statutory requirements for granting an extension have been met. In particular, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the permitted development was not commenced prior to the expiration of the appropriate period and that no substantial works have been carried out pursuant to the permission. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and there is no legislative basis upon which to grant an extension of the duration of the permission.

Chief Executive’s Order MG9353 — refusal schedule, page 2
Open official case Planning case · 2616