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
- 31 Design + Transport/access
- 27 Design + Residential amenity
- 25 Design + Zoning/policy
All ten refusal themes
Applications · statements- 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 56
- 02 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 41
- 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 38
- 04 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 38
- 05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 32
- 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 25
- 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 24
- 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 17
- 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 15
- 10 Built heritage or archaeology 12
Refusals published 10–16 Aug 2026
0 of 0 matching records shown