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

Refusal decisions · 10–16 Aug 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 59 case links · 61 linked projects

Refused

Main Street, Ballymahon, Co. Longford, Longford

Main Street, Ballymahon, Co. Longford

Longford County Council · 2660200

What was proposed

conversion of existing storage shed into a one bedroom apartment, proposed connection to the existing public sewer and all ancillary site works

Refusal reasons
  1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Development Management Standard DMS16.80 of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and the 'Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities'. The planning application lacks sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a serious impact on the residential amenity of the existing dwellings and any future residents of the proposed dwelling by reason of its siting and design. The development would therefore set an undesirable precedent within the area and is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development, consisting of the conversion of an existing storage shed to a one-bedroom apartment, would introduce an independent residential unit in a constrained backland location to the rear of existing development. Having regard to the limited size, form and layout of the existing structure, the absence of any clearly defined private amenity space and the failure to demonstrate an acceptable standard of residential accommodation for future occupants, the Planning Authority considers that the proposal would result in a substandard residential environment. Furthermore, the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with DMS16.78 of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027, which requires backland development to protect residential amenity and respect the established pattern of development. The proposed development would therefore constitute unsatisfactory backland development, would represent overdevelopment of the site and therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Notification of decision — refusal schedule, page 2