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

Refusals published 10–16 Aug 2026

4 of 4 matching records shown

Refused

Muingerroon South, Barnatra, Ballina Co. Mayo, Mayo

Muingerroon South, Barnatra, Ballina Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2560868

What was proposed

The development will consist of the retention of existing dwelling house previous planning granted under P80/1155 including retention of shed, existing access, boundaries and all other associated works and services

Refusal evidence

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

Open official case No PlanningBrief match
Refused

Liscottle, Swinford, Co. Mayo, Mayo

Liscottle, Swinford, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2560911

What was proposed

The proposed development consists of the installation of a 30-metre-high lattice telecommunications support structure with headframe carrying antennas, dishes, remote radio units (RRUs), associated equipment, together with ground-based equipment cabinets, palisade fencing, cable ladder, GPS, gantry pole, concrete foundations, access gate, and all associated site development works to provide for high-speed wireless data and broadband services.

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the location of the proposed development which would generate increased traffic from an existing substandard vehicular access onto the N5 National Route, the proposal would be contrary to the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 with specific reference to Policy MTP-23 which states ‘To protect the capacity, efficiency and safety of the national road network in Mayo by complying with the ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads - Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (2012)’ and Policy MTP-24 which states ‘To avoid the creation of additional direct access points from new development adjoining national roads or the generation of additional traffic from existing direct accesses to national roads to which speed limits greater than 60 km/h apply’. The proposed development is considered to be at variance with national official policy in relation to control of development on/affecting national roads, as outlined in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2012). Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be at variance with national policy in relation to development involving access to national roads would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users, would have a detrimental impact on Planning and Development Section Áras and Chontae, Castlebar, Co. Mayo www.mayo.ie | 0949064000 the capacity, safety or operational efficiency of the national road network in the vicinity of the site, and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise as the application fails to address the normal sighting and design considerations in relation to road safety at the access/egress point, in accordance with the requirements of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028.
  3. The nature of the proposed development and resulting operations, would give rise to certain traffic hazards, with associated requirement for ongoing and stringent control measures to be maintained, would cause undue risk to road safety, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area. END OF SCHEDLE.
Official decision evidence
Refused

Bunacurry, Achill, Co Mayo, Mayo

Bunacurry, Achill, Co Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660481

What was proposed

Construction of a single storey Dwelling House with waste water treatment system at Bunacurry, Acilll

Refusal reason

The trial hole excavated on the site has revealed that because of the high level of the ground water and the very poor percolating property of the soil, the ground is unsuitable for the safe disposal of effluent from a septic tank or propriety effluent treatment unit and the proposed development therefore would be prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Refused

16 Mount Street, Claremorris, Co. Mayo, Mayo

16 Mount Street, Claremorris, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660417

What was proposed

Retention Of 3no. First Floor Studio Apartments

Refusal reasons
  1. The development to be retained consists of three apartment units with floor areas of 38sq.m, 43.64sq.m and 43.42sq.m all of which fall short of the minimum floor area for one bedroomed apartment development which is 45sq.m as set out in Appendix 1 Minimum floor areas and standards of Planning Design Standards for Apartments: Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2025 and it is considered that the development would result in a substandard level of development, and would seriously injure the amenities of the future occupants of the existing development.
  2. The development, if permitted, would result in a poor standard of residential amenity for the inhabitants particularly with regard to apartment size, lack of open space, communal open space, car parking, bicycle parking, storage and refuse storage. The development would constitute the over development of the site and the over concentration of apartment units which, if granted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar type sub-standard developments which would seriously injure the amenities and depreciate the value of the property in the vicinity. Planning and Development Section Áras and Chontae, Castlebar, Co. Mayo www.mayo.ie | 0949064000.
Official decision evidence