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

1 of 1 matching records shown

Refused

Duncarbry, Tullaghan, Co. Leitrim, Leitrim

Duncarbry, Tullaghan, Co. Leitrim

Leitrim County Council · 2660145

What was proposed

completion of domestic garage associated with existing dwelling F91 VY56

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the provisions of Section 13.11.1 (Domestic Garage/Shed/Store Development) of the Leitrim County Development Plan 2023-2029, it is considered that the proposed retention and completion of the detached garage structure, by reason of its excessive scale, form, design, siting and external finish, fails to constitute a subordinate ancillary domestic structure associated with, or incidental to the enjoyment of, a dwelling house but rather for a commercial / light industrial use. If permitted, the development would set an undesirable precedent for the provision of similarly disproportionately large structures on unzoned lands without any association to an existing domestic or agricultural use to which the structure would be ancillary to. The subject development is therefore contrary to the provisions of Section 13.11.1 of the Leitrim County Development Plan 2023-2029 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The Planning Authority notes that the structure is located within the original curtilage of Tullaghan House, a protected structure (Record of Protected Structures Ref. No. 129), and is situated in close proximity to the protected structure, fronts onto the N15 National Primary Route and occupies a highly prominent position within views available from the public realm. Owing to its siting, scale, industrial appearance and visual prominence, the development is readily perceived as forming part of the setting and curtilage of Tullaghan House and introduces an intrusive and discordant feature into a sensitive historic environment. The development undermines the legibility, character and special interest of the protected structure and erodes the quality of its setting, which forms an integral element of its heritage significance. The subject development therefore fails to respect, conserve and enhance the character and setting of this protected structure and is contrary to BH POL 1, which seeks to protect protected structures and their special character, and BH POL 4, which seeks to ensure that development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure respects the protected structure and its setting, as set out in the Leitrim County Development Plan 2023-2029. The subject development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would materially diminish the architectural heritage value of Tullaghan House and its attendant grounds.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match