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

2 of 2 cards shown · 42 case links · 45 linked projects

Refused

Rossana Lower, Rathnew, Co. Wicklow, Wicklow

Rossana Lower, Rathnew, Co. Wicklow

Wicklow County Council · 2660620

What was proposed

agricultural entrance and ancillary works

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to (i) the location of the proposed entrance onto a heavily trafficked regional road in close proximity to the junction and interchange associated with the M11 National Primary Route (ii) the lack of adequate sightlines achievable at the proposed entrance It is considered that the proposed development would result in a serious traffic hazard, and would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.
  2. Having regard to i. objective WTR81 of the Wicklow Town - Rathnew Local Area Plan 2025, which seeks to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Transport Assessment with regard to the delivery of new regional/distributor roads and road improvements, including the completion of the Rathnew Inner Relief Road including reconfiguration of road network between Junction 16 and Rathnew Village to re direct Wicklow Town-bound flows away from the Aldi-Tinakilly traffic lights and the village centre; ii. the precise alignment of the Rathnew Inner Relief Road and the location of its junction/ merge point with the R772 have not yet been determined, it is considered that the proposed development would be premature pending the determination by the road’s authority of a road layout for the area, and therefore would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660620
Refused

Shalom, Tooman Rd Tinnapark Demesne, Kilpedder Co. Wicklow, Wicklow

Shalom, Tooman Rd Tinnapark Demesne, Kilpedder Co. Wicklow

Wicklow County Council · 2660623

What was proposed

existing structure to the rear of the property for use as car storage shed

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development would represent consolidation of un-authorised development on this site, having regard to: a) the existing development on site, comprised of structures in addition to the garage for retention, for which no permission exists; b) the commercial activity being carried out on site; c) the resurfacing of the site for which no permission exists The provision of such a form of development unduly impacts on the amenities of the area, public health, the amenities of adjoining properties, traffic safety, undermines the planning regulations and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The location of the gravelled area access/ parking area for the garage has impacted on the effluent treatment system serving the existing dwelling, and to allow this development would be prejudicial to public health and proper planning and sustainable development.
  3. Having regard to i. the garage permitted by reference to PRR 10/2172, and its current scale due to extended areas c. 80sqm, ii. the garage for retention which is c. 41sqm It is considered that the retention of this additional garage, when viewed in conjunction with the existing structures on the site, would contribute to an excessive cumulative size and scale of such development, would be over and above the needs of the dwelling and could not be considered ancillary to the main dwelling. To allow this structure would set an undesirable precedent for similar large-scale development in the absence of a genuine need and would be contrary to the amenities of the area and to proper planning and sustainable development.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660623