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

2 of 2 cards shown · 59 case links · 61 linked projects

Refused

Hazelwood Road, Hazelwood Demesne, Co. Sligo, Sligo

Hazelwood Road, Hazelwood Demesne, Co. Sligo

Sligo County Council · 2660233

What was proposed

a residential development of 99 no. dwellings, a childcare facility and two GAA playing pitches and clubhouse facility. The proposed development will consist of the following: the demolition of the existing agricultural structures on site (276.8 sq.m); the construction of 99 no. residential dwellings consisting of 10 no. one bedroom duplex units, 20 no. two bedroom house units, 50 no. three bedroom house units, 7 no. four bedroom house units, and 12 no. five bedroom house units; the provision of 168 no. car parking spaces and 50 no. bicycle spaces for the residential units; the construction of a standalone childcare facility (455 sq.m) with 12 no. designated staff parking spaces and 6 no. drop off spaces; the provision of 3,072 sq.m of public open space and 61 sq.m of communal open space; two GAA playing pitches on an area of 1.895 ha to the west and south-west of the residential development; a two storey Clubhouse (522 sq.m) with a car parking area providing for 2 no. bus spaces, 30 no. car parking spaces and 6 no. accessible spaces, associated with the GAA Pitches; the provision of a new entrance onto the R286 Hazelwood Road for vehicular, pedestrian and cycling access; the provision of a new pedestrian footpath and cycle lane (88m) along the R286 Hazelwood Road and a pedestrian crossing; and all associated and ancillary infrastructure (including surface water and foul water drainage and water supply), bin storage, internal streets, public lighting, landscaping, boundary treatments and development works, all on a site of 8.2 ha to the south of the Hazelwood Road (R286)

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the location of the site outside the Development Limit of Sligo Town, its separation from the established built-up area by intervening lands, and the fact that the residential element of the proposed development is located on lands designated as Strategic Land Reserve, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed residential component of the development would represent the orderly and sequential expansion of Sligo Town or accord with the Compact Growth principles as set-out in the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the release and development of these Strategic Land Reserve lands is justified having regard to the objective of ensuring Compact Growth, and given that the site’s infrastructural deficit in terms of transport infrastructure. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policy P-SLR-2 of the CDP, and is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and contrary to the Compact Growth objectives and Strategic Land Reserve provisions of the CDP.
  2. Policy P-SWD-1 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) requires all new development to provide a separate foul and surface water drainage system and to incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) where feasible. Policy P-SWD-2 of the CDP requires that planning applications are accompanied by a comprehensive SuDs assessment. It is considered that the information submitted in support of the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed method of surface water disposal for the development would be suitable for site. As such, surface water run-off from the development may exacerbate flooding or have a detrimental effect on water quality. The proposed development would materially contravene Policy P-SWD-1 and P-SWD-2 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Policy P-BD-2 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) seeks the protection of habitats of protected species. Policy P-BD-3 of the CDP requires that the ecological impacts of all development proposals on habitats of species are appropriately assessed by suitably qualified professionals in accordance with best practice and follows the precautionary principle where uncertainty exists. Due to the absence of a bat dusk emergence survey, the applicant has failed to confirm that the existing agricultural buildings are not used as a roost for bats, and therefore is not the habitat of a protected species. As such the proposed development, may lead to the destruction of the habitat of a protected species and is thus contrary to policies P-BD-2 and P-BD-3 of the CDP and is inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  4. Policy P-BD-2 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) seeks the protection of habitats of protected species. As outlined within the Ecoloigcal Impact Assessment included with the application the proposal will result in the disturbance or loss of a badger sett(s) which is the habitat of a protected species. The proposal fails to provide details relating to the adequate mitigation for the loss of this habitat. As such, the applicant has failed to submit adequate information in relation to a habitat for badgers, and to demonstrate that the proposed development, will not lead to the loss of the habitat of a protected species and is thus contrary to policy P-BD-2 of the CDP and is inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Notification of decision — complete refusal schedule
Refused

23 Chapel Street, Sligo, F91AKW3, Sligo

23 Chapel Street, Sligo, F91AKW3

Sligo County Council · 2660238

What was proposed

to retain exposed natural stone finish to front elevation

Refusal reason

It is the policy of the Planning Authority as set out in the current Sligo County Development Plan 2024 - 2030 to preserve, protect and enhance the architectural heritage of County Sligo for future generations by seeking to prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of protected structures and their settings. (P-ARH-1), to Ensure that any development, modifications, alterations, or extensions affecting a protected structure, an adjoining structure or a structure within an ACA is sited and designed appropriately and is not detrimental to the character of the structure, to its setting or the general character of the ACA. (P-ARH-2) and conserve and enhance the special character of the Architectural Conservation Areas. The special character of an area includes its traditional building stock and material finishes, spaces, streetscapes, shop fronts, landscape and setting (P-ACA-1). It is considered that the proposed retention of the exposed stone front façade is a non-sympathetic alteration and would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Architectural Conservation Area and setting of neighbouring protected structures. The development would therefore not be in accordance with the principles of architectural heritage as set out in policy P -ARH-1, P-ARH-2, Section 25.3, P-ACA-1 and P-ACA-2 of the County Development Plan 2024 -2030 and accordingly would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Notification of decision — complete refusal schedule