Refusal decisions · 24–30 Aug 2026

81Refusals
79Substantive reasons
0Verification only
0Document not published
0Portal unavailable
2Manual review

49 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, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes or created access or road-safety problems.

79 of 81 records carry official reason text

163 published statements, 2.1 per analysed application

43 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 32 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 30 Design + Residential amenity
  3. 27 Design + Missing evidence

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 57
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 38
  3. 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 32
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 32
  5. 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 31
  6. 06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 19
  7. 07 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 19
  8. 08 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 14
  9. 09 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 14
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 9
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 24–30 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 79 of 81 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 79 substantive-reason decisions as the denominator. 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 development67
  • Development plan cited64
  • Undesirable precedent cited29

5 published reason statements did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 24–30 Aug 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 79 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Hillcrest, Ballysheedy, Limerick, Limerick

Hillcrest, Ballysheedy, Limerick

Limerick City and County Council · 2660755

What was proposed

the renovation, extension and change of use of an existing standalone garage to 1-bedroom residential accommodation, together with all associated site works and services

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development, consisting of a detached residential unit fails to demonstrate compliance with Objective HO O11 Subdivision of Dwelling to Accommodate Dependent Relative of the Limerick Development Plan 2022–2028 where there is a presumption against proposals for detached independent units within the curtilage of a dwelling. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Limerick Development Plan 2022–2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Having regard to the scale and detached nature of the proposed residential unit, the proposal for a shared connection to the existing on-site waste water treatment system would be contrary to the Environmental Protection Agency's Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses and would be prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet