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

Knockroe, Ardamine, Wexford

Knockroe, Ardamine

Wexford County Council · 20260836

What was proposed

Permission to erect a new bungalow type dwelling with detached domestic garage

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the Rural Housing Policy as set out under Section 4.9.1 and Table 4-6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 relating to this coastal area, the applicant owns their current home in a level 3a strategic settlement. These settlements are outside of the local rural area as defined in the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would therefore be at variance with this Coastal Zone Policy and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  2. Having regard to the Rural Housing Policy as set out under Section 4.9.1 and Table 4-6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 relating to downsizing, the applicant’s proposal does not comply with current policy and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Insufficient information and clarity have been submitted in respect of the wastewater assessment for the proposed site. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 20260836