Refusal decisions · 17–23 Aug 2026

45Refusals
45Substantive reasons
0Verification only
0Document not published
0Portal unavailable
0Manual review

48 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, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes or lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable.

45 of 45 records carry official reason text

82 published statements, 1.8 per analysed application

23 refused on more than one ground, up to 4

Most common pairs

  1. 16 Design + Residential amenity
  2. 15 Design + Transport/access
  3. 15 Design + Zoning/policy

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 33
  2. 02 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 19
  3. 03 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 17
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 16
  5. 05 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 12
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 8
  7. 07 Built heritage or archaeology 8
  8. 08 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 7
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 5
  10. 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 5

Refusal decisions · 17–23 Aug 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 42 case links · 45 linked projects

Refused

Corbally, Kilkee, Co. Clare, Clare

Corbally, Kilkee, Co. Clare

Clare County Council · 2660419

What was proposed

for development which will consist of the installation of an 18-metre monopole telecommunications support structure carrying antennas, dishes, remote radio units (RRU’s), aircraft warning light, lightning finials, fibre chamber, associated equipment, together with ground-based equipment cabinets, 2.4m palisade fencing, 1.0m wide access gate, stone-surfaced compound, and all associated site development works to provide for high-speed wireless data and broadband services

Refusal reason

Having regard to the location of the site on a Scenic Route within a Seascape Character Area and within a designated Heritage Landscape as per the Clare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied), the open and elevated nature of the proposal site, the views available towards the site from the north east, east, south and south west, the nature of the development proposed, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would represent a visually obtrusive and incongruous feature in the receiving landscape, would result in the development being a prominent landmark clearly visible over a wide area, would not be in keeping with the open expansive coastal character of the area, would have adverse impacts on the views available from the adjacent Scenic Route towards the south west, and would have adverse impacts on the character of this elevated coastal landscape. Therefore, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of Development Plan objectives CDP 14.5 Heritage Landscapes, CDP 14.6 Seascape Character areas, CDP Objectives 14.7 Scenic Routes and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence