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
32 Design + Zoning/policy
30 Design + Residential amenity
27 Design + Missing evidence
All ten refusal themes
Applications · statements
01Design, scale, character or visual impact57
02Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need38
03Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail32
04Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise32
05Traffic, access, parking or road safety31
06Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health19
07Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history19
08Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts14
09Surface-water drainage or flood risk14
10Built heritage or archaeology9
Refusal decisions · 24–30 Aug 2026
1 of 1 cards shown · 79 case links · 0 linked projects
proposed new agricultural entrance and all ancillary site works
Refusal reason
Having regard to the information submitted, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that a sufficient need has been demonstrated for the proposed agricultural entrance. The subject lands are served by an existing agricultural entrance from the laneway to the rear of Paddock 3 and the applicant has not adequately demonstrated why this existing access arrangement is insufficient to serve the agricultural needs of the landholding. The proposed development would therefore result in an unnecessary additional entrance onto the public road. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.