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

Kilcolgan More, Ferbane, Co. Offaly, Offaly

Kilcolgan More, Ferbane, Co. Offaly

Offaly County Council · 2660335

What was proposed

the construction of a dwelling house and domestic garage, to include a septic tank and percolation area, proposed connection to mains water supply, new site entrance and all associated site works

Refusal reason

The subject site is located in open countryside within an area of the County that is designated as a “Rural Area under Strong Urban Influence” in the Offaly County Development Plan 2021-2027. In such areas it is development plan policy that certain categories of applicant, which are defined in policy SSP-27 of the County Development Plan, will be given a positive presumption for the development of a permanent rural home. The Council considers however that the applicants do not comply with the above policy as the applicants are not one of the defined categories of applicant outlined in SSP-27 and accordingly the proposed development would materially contravene the 2021-2027 Offaly County Development Plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ************************** O f f a l y 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. 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 · 2660335