Refusal decisions · 10–16 Aug 2026

62Refusals
61Substantive reasons
0Verification only
0Document not published
0Portal unavailable
1Manual review

57 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, created access or road-safety problems, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable or harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes.

61 of 62 records carry official reason text

131 published statements, 2.1 per analysed application

32 refused on more than one ground, up to 8

Most common pairs

  1. 21 Design + Transport/access
  2. 20 Design + Zoning/policy
  3. 17 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 44
  2. 02 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 25
  3. 03 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 25
  4. 04 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 20
  5. 05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 20
  6. 06 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 14
  7. 07 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 14
  8. 08 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 14
  9. 09 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 10
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 6
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 10–16 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 61 of 62 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 61 substantive-reason decisions as the denominator. 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 development55
  • Development plan cited51
  • Undesirable precedent cited24

12 published reason statements did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 10–16 Aug 2026

3 of 3 cards shown · 59 case links · 61 linked projects

Refused

Bun na Spéire, Oolagh East Caragh Lake, Killorglin, Kerry

Bun na Spéire, Oolagh East Caragh Lake, Killorglin

Kerry County Council · 2561088

What was proposed

(a) retain the change of use of the domestic garage on site to living accommodation ancillary to Bun na Spéire dwelling on site (b) retain sauna on site (c) retain the continued use of the property for short-term letting via platforms such as Airbnb and Booking.com. The property includes a main lakehouse, a separate cottage, and associated amenities.

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. SCHEDULE (1) Having regard to the nature, extent and location of the proposed development and any submissions made in relation to the application it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Second Schedule, the proposed development would not be visually obtrusive, would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or be otherwise contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. SCHEDULE 2(A) Retention Permission to retain sauna on site
  3. The sauna shall be retained in accordance with the plans and particulars received by the Planning Authority on 25/11/2025, 08/06/2026 & 20/07/2026. Reason: To regulate and control the layout of the development. SCHEDULE 2(B) Refusal of Retention Permission to retain the change of use of the domestic garage on site to living accommodation ancillary to Bun na Spéire dwelling on site, retain the continued use of the property for short-term letting via platforms such as Airbnb and Booking.com
  4. 3.5.3 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to Short-Term Letting and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  5. 5.10.7 of Vol. 6, Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 relating to wastewater treatment which states ‘Only one dwelling unit shall be connected to a single septic tank’. The proposed development would, therefore, be prejudicial to public health. The proposed development would constitute over-development of the site, would set an undesirable precedent for similar type development and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K e r r y P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y - I n s p e c t i o n P u r p o s e s O n l y !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2561088
Refused

Lackabane, Killarney, Co. Kerry, Kerry

Lackabane, Killarney, Co. Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660566

What was proposed

construct 4-3bedroom semi-detached dwellings and eight car parking spaces, together with all private amenity spaces, ancillary services, and associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. 094974. Condition No 2(b) attached to the grant of planning permission requires that ‘a 45m wide strip of land immediately north of the public road frontage shall be maintained free of housing development’. The proposed development would materially contravene the said Condition No 2(b), would depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K e r r y P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y - I n s p e c t i o n P u r p o s e s O n l y !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660566
Refused

Greenane, Templenoe, Kenmare Co Kerry, Kerry

Greenane, Templenoe, Kenmare Co Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660553

What was proposed

construct a vehicular access roadway and all associated works

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. Having regard to the layout of the proposed access road and in the absence of information in relation to the purpose of the proposed road and the nature and volume of traffic likely to be generated, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not cause a traffic hazard. In addition, having regard to the location of the entrance to the Ring of Kerry Golf Course on to the N70 National Secondary Road at a location where a speed limit exceeding 60kph applies, the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would contravene DoECLG ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities’. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Based on the information submitted, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely impact on the biodiversity and natural heritage value of the area. In particular, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts on the integrity of the ‘Old Domestic Building, Dromore Wood’ Special Area of Conservation (SAC) by way of impact on habitat of potential value to Lesser Horseshoe Bat and on the ‘Kenmare River’ SAC by way of potential for impact on water quality. The proposal would therefore conflict with Development Objectives 11-1, 11-2 and 11-3 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022- 2028, as varied. It is considered that the proposal is also one, which if permitted, may facilitate a reduction in the general level of broadleaf tree cover in the area, which would be contrary to Development Objectives KCD 11-27 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the protection of the environment and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  4. The construction of the proposed access road would adversely impact on the layout of the Ring of Kerry Golf Course which is a valuable tourist and sport/recreational asset. The proposed development would seriously compromise the economic, employment and sporting/recreational benefits of the golf course and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K e r r y P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y - I n s p e c t i o n P u r p o s e s O n l y !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660553