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

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

Refused

Airfield Point, within the townland of Coxtown East/Dunmore, Co. Waterford, Waterford

Airfield Point, within the townland of Coxtown East/Dunmore, Co. Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2560581

What was proposed

development of the following: (a) 86 no. residential units including (i) 1 no. 2 storey 4 bed detached units; (ii) 1 no. 2 storey 3 bed detached units; (iii) 13 no. 2 storey 4 bed semi-detached units; (iv) 1 no. 2 storey 3 bed semi-detached units; (v) 56 no. 2 storey 3 bed terrace units; (vi) 4 no. 1 storey 1 bed apartment units; (vii) 2 no. 1 storey 2 bed apartment units; (viii) 8 no. 2 storey 3 bed apartment units; (b) 1 storey creche (219.3m2) to include 2 no. classrooms, ancillary rooms, outdoor play area, building mounted signage, 10 no. car parking spaces and set down area and (c) all associated site works including (i) foul and surface water drainage, and water mains; (ii) storm water pumping station; (iii) detention pond; (iv) vehicular road and pedestrian connection to Airfield Point housing estate (v) car parking; (vi) landscaping and public lighting and (vii) all other associated site development works

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed revisions to the site boundary at further information stage to provide foul and stormwater sewer connections to the public networks cannot be considered by way of significant further information, as it is considered that these works represent a fundamental change to the development. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposed surface water pump station and rising main as per details submitted to the Planning Authority on the 21st August 2025, is not an acceptable means of serving the site, therefore, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that an adequate connection to the surface water drainage network is technically feasible. Furthermore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that it has been demonstrated in the details submitted to the Planning Authority on the 21st August 2025 that it is technically feasible to the satisfaction of Uisce Éireann, as the Water Authority, to undertake diversions of existing services on site. The proposed development would therefore be premature pending the resolution of the deficiency in the provision of an adequate connection to the public stormwater network and sewerage facilities and the absence of a solution to same and as such would be contrary to public health and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Having regard to the location of the detention basin to the rear of two apartment blocks it is considered that the area is not suitably integrated into the overall development as an amenity area and therefore fails to meet all of the four main objectives of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Furthermore, it is considered that the design of the detention basin, with particular reference to the inclusion of ‘steps’ and the overall depth of temporary storage, would inhibit ease of access for maintenance, its use as amenity space and create a safety hazard, and as such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy UTL 09 of the Waterford City and County Development Plan 2022 – 2028 and would cause an increased risk to public safety by means of a safety hazard. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the policies of the Waterford City and County Development Plan 2022 - 2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence