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

2 of 2 cards shown · 59 case links · 61 linked projects

Refused

Killeen, Kilmanagh, Co. Kilkenny, Kilkenny

Killeen, Kilmanagh, Co. Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2660389

What was proposed

to construct a dormer style dwelling, new entrance with associated wing walls, appropriate waste water treatment system, bored well, single storey domestic garage, ground mounted PV solar panels, all ancillary site works and landscaping at

Refusal reasons
  1. (v)
  2. Having regard to mottling noted within 500mm below ground level in the trial hole on site during site inspection, and documentation and proposals submitted with the application, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that wastewater and surface water can be adequately catered for on site without risk to the environment and public health; the development as proposed would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Please
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660389
Refused

73 Maudlin Street, Kilkenny City, Co. Kilkenny, Kilkenny

73 Maudlin Street, Kilkenny City, Co. Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2651

What was proposed

of 20/202

Refusal reason

Pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, it is hereby decided to REFUSE EXTENSION OF DURATION on Planning Reference No. P20/202 because, contrary to requirements, development has not commenced and substantial work have not been carried out. The Planning Authority is statute barred from granting an extension of duration and herewith refuse permission to extend the duration of permission 20/202. K i l k e n n y C o u n t y C o u n c i l - V i e w i n g P u r p o s e s O n l y !

Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2651