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

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

Refused

The Clonaslee Inn, Main Street, Clonaslee Co. Laois., Laois

The Clonaslee Inn, Main Street, Clonaslee Co. Laois.

Laois County Council · 2560825

What was proposed

i) demolsh the existing public house & private residence and all rear extensions. ii) Demolish the derelict outbuilding to the rear of the site. iii) construct a two-storey, 3 no. bed dwelling to the front of the site iv) construct two, 4 no. bed dwelling houses to the rear of the site. v) repair and construction of all boundary walls vi) Construct a new shared access road, landscape, parking and all associated site works

Refusal reason

“The development site is within the confines of the Clonaslee Architectural Conservation Area as outlined in Appendix 2 of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. In the absence of a detailed Architectural Impact Assessment of the proposed development which involves substantial demolition works and the creation of a backland residential element accessed through a laneway from the street frontage, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely affect Clonaslee Architectural Conservation Area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.” L a o i s C o u n t y C o u n c i l P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y, V i e w i n g P u r p o s e s O n l y !

Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2560825