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

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

Refused

Rear of No. 37 & Rear of No. 38 Ballymahon Street, Longford, and fronting onto Breadens Lane and Saints Quarter, Longford

Rear of No. 37 & Rear of No. 38 Ballymahon Street, Longford, and fronting onto Breadens Lane and Saints Quarter

Longford County Council · 2619

What was proposed

(Ref No. 25/31) of the removal of storage areas and the erection of 4 No. own-door apartments with parking spaces, connection into existing on site surface and foul drains and all related ancillary works

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development would result in a substandard form of residential accommodation by reason of the inadequate bedroom dimensions within Dwelling 2 and the failure to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the Planning Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2025). Furthermore, the restricted bedroom window openings and reliance on high-level rooflight openings serving habitable accommodation would result in an unacceptable standard of residential amenity for future occupants. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the Housing Strategy, Placemaking Strategy and Development Management Standards relating to Residential Development (Section 16.4.4), Design and Layout (Section 16.4.4.9) and Apartments (Section 16.4.4.10) of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development, by reason of the failure to achieve the recommended separation distance between opposing windows and the reliance on a 1.8m high solid terrace enclosure to mitigate overlooking, would result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The proposal would give rise to concerns relating to overlooking, privacy and sunlight for both existing and future occupants and would create an unsatisfactory residential environment. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height, massing and design within a constrained secondary rear-lane location, would appear as an overly dominant form of development that would adversely affect the established character, appearance and hierarchy of the surrounding built environment. The proposal would represent an inappropriate and visually intrusive form of development that fails to satisfactorily integrate with its surroundings and would therefore be contrary to the Housing Strategy, Placemaking Strategy and Development Management Standards relating to Residential Development (Section 16.4.4) and Design and Layout (Section 16.4.4.9) of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Refused

Lismore House, Lismore, Co. Longford, Longford

Lismore House, Lismore, Co. Longford

Longford County Council · 2560301

What was proposed

additional works and design changes carried out during the refurbishment and extension of Lismore House (Planning Ref. No. 23-60243). These works relate to a protected structure (RPS 375)

Refusal reason

The unauthorised works have resulted in the loss of historic fabric, alterations to the historic layout and changes to approved materials which have adversely affected the character, integrity and heritage significance of the Protected Structure. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that these works have been adequately justified or that they accord with accepted conservation practice. The development is therefore contrary to Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for unauthorised works to Protected Structures.

Official decision evidence