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

3 of 3 matching records shown

Refused

Lackabrack, Killoscully, Newport, Tipperary

Lackabrack, Killoscully, Newport

Tipperary County Council · 2670

What was proposed

change of design and position of single storey domestic garage as granted under planning application 16600291 and permission for change of use of a section of the garage into a commercial coffee station and all associated site works

Refusal reason

It cannot be concluded that the development under Pl Ref 21/762 was commenced and substantial works were carried out pursuant to this permission. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 42(1) (a) (i) parts (I) & (III) of the Planni ng and Development Act 2000, as amended.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match
Refused

Silver View, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Tipperary

Silver View, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary

Tipperary County Council · 2660346

What was proposed

construction of Internal entrance gates along the Southern boundary, omitted by Condition 2 of previously approved permission 2560234

Refusal reason

The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development, which would result in an adverse impact to a heritage asset through loss of historic masonry boundary wall, is an appropriate intervention or would preserve the character and integrity of the Protected Structure (TRPS 2350) and its curtilage. The proposed development is considered contrary to the requirements of Policy 13 – 1 of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 -2028 and the guidance contained in The Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities (Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, 2022). The proposed development would set an undesirable precedent for similar development of this nature and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match
Refused

Mount Carmel, Tyone, Nenagh, Tipperary

Mount Carmel, Tyone, Nenagh

Tipperary County Council · 2561239

What was proposed

the demolition of an existing boundary wall, extension of existing hard surfaced area and erection of new boundary wall to the rear of surgery

Refusal reasons
  1. The nature and extent of the proposed hardstanding and the stated use of the area for car parking.
  2. The significant level of ground excavation required and design of the boundary treatment proposals.
  3. The development location relative to an adjoining residential property. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that a clear and demonstrated need has been provided for the development proposed, in particular the requirement for the 2 way circulation route serving the proposed parking spaces. Furthermore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development is visually acceptable for the site and would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the residential property that adjoins the site. The proposed development is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match