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

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

Refused

Deerpark West Murrisk, Westport, Co. Mayo, Mayo

Deerpark West Murrisk, Westport, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660486

What was proposed

Construction of a new permanent single-storey family dwelling house, wastewater treatment system, and all associated site works and landscaping

Refusal reasons
  1. The development at this location would contravene “Objective RHO 4” of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 which must ensure that development “Does not impinge in any significant way on the character, integrity and distinctiveness of the area, Cannot be considered at an alternative location, Meets high standards in siting and design, Satisfies all other criterial with regard to, inter alia, servicing, public safety, and environmental considerations Demonstrates enhancement to local landscape character and ecological connectivity” The proposed development would therefore set an undesirable precedent for similar type developments in scenic coastal areas, would interfere with the character of the landscape at this location, which it is necessary to preserve, and would, both by itself, and the precedent it would set, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  2. The applicants have failed to satisfy Mayo County Council that the proposed development meets the criteria outlined in Objective RHO 4 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, most especially with regard to the possibility of locating the development at a less visually sensitive location. The proposed development would therefore interfere with the character of the landscape at this location, which it is necessary to preserve, and be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area. END OF SCHEDUL !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660486