Latest refusal decisions.

Partial count · 131 records as of this provisional edition.

131Refusals
131Case links
91Lead matches
24Counties

What this means

Applications were most often refused because the proposal did not fit its site or surroundings, created access or road-safety problems, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy or harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes.

91 of 131 records carry official reason text

198 published statements, 2.2 per analysed application

52 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 31 Design + Transport/access
  2. 27 Design + Residential amenity
  3. 25 Design + Zoning/policy

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 56
  2. 02 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 41
  3. 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 38
  4. 04 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 38
  5. 05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 32
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 25
  7. 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 24
  8. 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 17
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 15
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 12

Refusals published 10–16 Aug 2026

1 of 1 matching records shown

Refused

Tinryland GAA Grounds, Rathcrogue, Co Carlow, Carlow

Tinryland GAA Grounds, Rathcrogue, Co Carlow

Carlow County Council · 2660113

What was proposed

to erect a 30.5m high lattice telecommunications support structure carrying antennas, dishes and associated ground based telecommunications equipment all within a fenced compound

Refusal reason

Having regard to the provisions of the Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structures Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 1996, as revised by Circular Letter PL 07/12; to Policies IC P3 and IC P4 and Section 16.11.11 of the Carlow County Development Plan 2022-2028, which seek to encourage the sharing and co-location of telecommunications infrastructure and to avoid the unnecessary proliferation of telecommunications structures; and to the permission recently granted under Reg. Ref. PL26/60066 for a 30m high multi-operator telecommunications support structure within close proximity to the application site; the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the need for an additional 30.5m high telecommunications support structure at this location has been adequately demonstrated. In particular, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that co-location on the permitted structure would be unavailable or impracticable, and the cumulative visual impact of both structures on the surrounding rural area and on views from the adjoining N80 and M9 road corridors has not been adequately assessed. The proposed development would therefore lead to a proliferation of telecommunications structures where an opportunity for co-location exists within the immediate area, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence