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

2 of 2 matching records shown

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 evidence

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

Open official case No PlanningBrief match
Refused

Knoxspark, Ballisodare, Co. Sligo, Sligo

Knoxspark, Ballisodare, Co. Sligo

Sligo County Council · 2660105

What was proposed

Permission for 1.Construction of a part single storey, part two storey dwelling split level dwelling, 2.Connection to the existing public wastewater network, 3. Construction of a new site access including construction of access road and driveway, 4. All associated site development works

Refusal reason

Having regard to the scale and design of proposed dwelling house, the proposal to partially fill the site to accommodate the proposed development which results in increased finished levels on site, in particular along the northern application site boundary and the extent of the proposed boundary treatments along the norther n a pplication site boundary, it is considered that the proposed development would adversely impact on the visual and residential amenities of house no’s 1, 2, 3 & 4 within Carriag Abhainn by way of overbearing impact. As such, the proposed development would be seriously injurious to the residential amenities of the adjacent dwellings within Carriag Abhainn and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match