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
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 17–23 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for all 45 refusals this week. 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 development40
  • Development plan cited33
  • Undesirable precedent cited18

7 published reason statements did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 17–23 Aug 2026

2 of 2 cards shown · 42 case links · 45 linked projects

Refused

Killeen, Castlecove, Co.Kerry, Kerry

Killeen, Castlecove, Co.Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660592

What was proposed

the construction of a new single storey detached dwelling and the installation of a new wastewater treatment unit, and all associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. Having regard to the location of the development with direct access onto the N70 National Secondary Road at a location where the speed limit of 80km/h applies, it is considered that the proposed development, by itself or by the precedent it would set for other development, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users because of the additional traffic turning movements the development would generate on this National Secondary Road. The proposed development would contravene national policy in relation to the control of development on national roads as set out in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities issue by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in January 2012, which seeks to secure the efficiency, capacity and safety of the national road network and would contravene materially Objectives KCDP 14-29 and KCDP 14-30 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022- 2028. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K e r 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 !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660592
Refused

37 Limerick Road, Castleisland, Co. Kerry, Kerry

37 Limerick Road, Castleisland, Co. Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660583

What was proposed

i) Proposed demolition of a) 4 number, existing single storey sheds to the rear of the site, and b) the existing front boundary wall onto Limerick Road. ii) Construction of a new front boundary wall to facilitate a) widened vehicular entrance to the development b) new vehicular entrance and 1 number associated parking space to the front of the existing house, and c) pedestrian access from Limerick Road to the development. iii) Provision of a new boundary wall to the rear of the existing house enclosing the garden iv) Construction of 5 number, 2-storey houses with rear gardens and dormer windows to the front and rear, arranged in 2 number blocks, located to the rear of the existing 2-storey house and orientated east-west. v) Provision of 5 number car parking spaces vi) Boundary treatments; vii) landscaping, SUDs drainage and all ancillary works necessary to facilitate the development.

Refusal reasons
  1. An
  2. It is considered that the proposed development would constitute over-development of this confined site by reason of excessive site coverage, lack of adequate private open space and inadequate provision of car parking and would result in substandard residential development which would seriously injure the residential amenities of property within the proposed development and in the vicinity of the site. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed development does meet the Development Management Standards of Volume 6 in the County Development Plan 2022- 2028 and would set a negative precedent for similar substandard development. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  3. On the basis of the information submitted, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not endanger public safety, pose a traffic hazard or otherwise. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. K e r 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 !
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660583