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

Attiduff, Maugherow, Co. Sligo, Sligo

Attiduff, Maugherow, Co. Sligo

Sligo County Council · 2660254

What was proposed

the construction of a new single-storey family dwelling, separate single-storey garage, waste water treatment system with percolation area, improvements to existing vehicle entrance and all associated ancillary site works and landscaping

Refusal reasons
  1. By reason of its elevated and exposed location, and as the development would constitute an isolated dwelling in an open agricultural area detached from the existing pattern of development, the proposed dwelling would be visually prominent in the rural landscape and would adversely impact upon the scenic and visual amenities of the area. The siting of the proposed development is therefore contrary to policy P-RHOU-2 and the guidance contained in Section 33.4.2, 'Site Selection - Locating a House in the Landscape', of the Sligo County Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied). The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to the character of the rural landscape, would establish an undesirable precedent for similar development, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area
  2. The applicant has not stated their current housing circumstances or confirmed that they do not own any other dwelling(s) within the respective rural area, nor whether the proposed dwelling is intended to be for their permanent occupation. Therefore, having regard to the requirements of SP-S-10, it cannot be concluded that the applicant's housing need could not be met elsewhere.
  3. Uisce Éireann have stated that there is insufficient information submitted with the application to confirm that the proposed dwelling house can be serviced for water supply.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660254