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
16 Design + Residential amenity
15 Design + Transport/access
15 Design + Zoning/policy
All ten refusal themes
Applications · statements
01Design, scale, character or visual impact33
02Traffic, access, parking or road safety19
03Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need17
04Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise16
05Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail12
06Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history8
07Built heritage or archaeology8
08Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health7
09Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts5
10Surface-water drainage or flood risk5
Refusal decisions · 17–23 Aug 2026
2 of 2 cards shown · 42 case links · 45 linked projects
The development will consist of a change of use of existing public house and restaurant to an education and training centre including internal layout alterations, together with all ancillary site works
Refusal reasons
Having regard to the location of the proposed development which would generate increased traffic from an existing vehicular access onto the N59 National route, the proposal would be contrary to the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 with specific reference to Policy MTP-24 which states ‘To avoid the creation of additional direct access points from new development adjoining national roads or the generation of additional traffic from existing direct accesses to national roads to which speed limits greater than 60 km/h apply’. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be at variance with the Mayo County Development Plan 2022 - 2028 policy in relation to development involving access onto national roads, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
The site is located within a rural area outside of any town or village boundary, therefore the proposed development for change of use to an education and training centre for medical devices would be contrary to Objective EDO 54 of the current Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, which aims to facilitate rural enterprises and resource development that are M a y o 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 ! Planning and Development Section Áras and Chontae, Castlebar, Co. Mayo www.mayo.ie | 0949064000 dependent on their locality in rural locations. The proposed development, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for unsuitable non rural dependent commercial development in the rural area, would constitute haphazard development in a rural area which would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and interfere with the character of the landscape at this location which it is necessary to preserve. The proposed development is, therefore, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. END OF SCHEDULE M a y o 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 !
Consist of the Construction of 1 No. Dwelling House & Wastewater Treatment System with Soil Polishing Filter. Including all other ancillary site work and services.
Refusal reason
The development as proposed, which involves the creation of access road in excess of 100m in length to serve a single dwelling house located to the rear of existing dwelling houses along this stretch of rural road, would, create an undesirable precedent, leading to further proposals for in depth- suburban type development in an un-serviced rural area, and would, both by itself and the precedent it would set, mitigate against the preservation of the rural landscape which it is necessary to preserve. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. END OF SCHEDULE M a y o 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 !