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

Coolnamuck West, Carrickbeg, Carrick-on-Suir, Tipperary

Coolnamuck West, Carrickbeg, Carrick-on-Suir

Tipperary County Council · 2679

What was proposed

dwelling house and wastewater treatment system and alterations to roadside entrance and that the planning permission application proposal is facilitated by the demolition of a previous dwelling permitted under Pl. Ref. No. 09/560038

Refusal reason

This application is to extend the duration of Plan Reg No 19/601282. This permission expired on the 07/01/2026 (as per I Plan). In accordance with Section 251 (Calculation of appropriate period and other time limits over holidays) of the Planning and Deve lopment Act 2000, as amended, “the period between the 24th day of December and the first day of January, both days inclusive, shall be disregarded”. Allowing for these additional 45 days the expiry date of Planning Reference 19/601282 is the 21st of February 2026. As per Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, a planning authority shall extend the appropriate period of a permission provided that (a) (i) the authority is satisfied that— (I) the development to which the permission relates was commenced before the expiration of the appropriate period sought to be extended, (III) substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission during that period, and (IV) the development will be completed within a reasonable time (b) the application is in accordance with such regulations under this Act as apply to it, (c) any requirements of, or made under those regulations are complied with as regards the application, and (d) the application is duly made prior to the end of the appropriate period. Having regard to the documentation submitted and having undertaken a site inspection, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the permission commenced before the expiration of the appropriate period sought to be extended nor is the Planning Authority satisfied that application was made prior to the end of the appropriate period. Permission to extend the duration of Plan reg No 19/601282 shall be refused. The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirements of Section 41(a) and (d) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.

Chief Executive’s Order — refusal reasons, pages 1–2
Refused

Colman, Fethard, Co. Tipperary, Tipperary

Colman, Fethard, Co. Tipperary

Tipperary County Council · 2660590

What was proposed

a) widen the existing entrance and retention permission for b) two feed silos, c) extension to existing sheds, d) the change of use to retail of the lands, office and warehouses and associated storage, e) use of the yard for open storage of materials for sale, f) erection of signage and g) a front boundary wall

Refusal reasons
  1. 5km from Fethard, Co. Tipperary. In accordance with the Retail Planning Guidelines 2012, it is a policy of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 (Policy 7-4) to support new small-scale retail development outside of settlement boundaries in exceptional circumstances only, where it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that it is ancillary to a tourism or recreational use, is ancillary to an on-farm diversification business, or where it is retailing a product produced on site and directly to the public. Having regard to the nature of the retail activity undertaken on site i.e. bulky goods/co- op, the Planning Authority considers that the change of use of the lands and structures would, if permitted, conflict with a stated policy of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 (Policy 7-4), conflict with the Retail Planning Guidelines 2012 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. 1 (Road Design and Visibility at a Direct Access) of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 sets out the sightline requirements for new development. Owing to the failure of the applicant to demonstrate that the existing or modified entrance satisfies the required standards the Planning Authority is not satisfied that a safe means of access to and egress from the site can be provided. The proposal would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users and is considered to be contrary to a stated objective of the Development Plan and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The feed silo, extension to the shed, signage and use of the yard for open storage for which retention permission is sought are in use for an unauthorised retail use. The retention of the subject structures would facilitate an unauthorised use and would if permitted be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and set an undesirable precedent for other such similar development. T i p p e r a r y P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y - I n s p e c t i o n P u r p o s e s O n l y ! Footnote: An
Official decision evidence