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

Knightswood, Ballinafid, Co. Westmeath, Westmeath

Knightswood, Ballinafid, Co. Westmeath

Westmeath County Council · 2660321

What was proposed

development which will consist of permission for the construction of a new dwelling (181.71 sq m) and domestic garage (40 sq m). Permission is also sought for the installation of a wastewater treatment system and percolation area, and permission to upgrade the existing agricultural entrance to a domestic entrance and all associated site works

Refusal reason

Having regard to the extremely elevated and visually exposed nature of the site, the proposed siting, scale, form and design of the dwelling would fail to integrate with the receiving rural landscape and would present as a prominent and intrusive feature on the skyline, resulting in an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenities and rural character of the area. The proposal fails to utilise the natural topography or landscape features to assimilate the development into its surroundings and would be readily visible in long -distance views. If permitted, the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar visually prominent development in elevated rural locations. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy Objective CPO 16.32 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021 –2027 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Chief Executive’s Order MG9363 — refusal schedule, page 2
Open official case Planning case · 2660321