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
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Reporting window 10–16 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 91 of 131 records in this weekly snapshot. Every figure is calculated offline from official refusal reason text retained in this snapshot.

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 development81
  • Development plan cited71
  • Undesirable precedent cited37

Every published reason statement fitted at least one of the ten substantive themes.

Refusals published 10–16 Aug 2026

2 of 2 matching records shown

Refused

Existing IMC Cinema Complex, Old Mart Street and Castlecomer Road, Kilkenny, Kilkenny

Existing IMC Cinema Complex, Old Mart Street and Castlecomer Road, Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2560507

What was proposed

for Development at the Existing IMC Cinema Complex. The development will consist of the following: 1. Construction and provision of a part two-storey and part single-storey fast food restaurant with ‘drive thru’ facility. 2. Illuminated external restaurant signage. 3. Erection of an entrance height restrictor with signage. 4. 1 no. illuminated free standing menu display sign. 5. 2 no. ordering kiosks. 6. Driveway with access point off the existing private car park. 7. 2 no. parking bays. 8. Outdoor seating area. 9. Construction and provision a single storey retail unit. 10. Illuminated external retail unit signage. 11. Alterations to the existing carpark layout and all associated site works

Refusal evidence

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

Open official case No PlanningBrief match
Refused

Dunbell Big, Ballyreddin, Co. Kilkenny, Kilkenny

Dunbell Big, Ballyreddin, Co. Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2560733

What was proposed

for: office unit with access ramp (17.3sqm), vehicular entrance from public road (L2632-37) with associated entrance gate and piers, front boundary timber post and wire fencing; connection to existing wastewater treatment system, drainage; and all associated and ancillary works

Refusal evidence

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

Open official case No PlanningBrief match