Refusal decisions · 24–30 Aug 2026

54Refusals

54Substantive reasons

0Verification only

0Document not published

0Portal unavailable

0Manual review

What this means

Applications were most often refused because the proposal did not fit its site or surroundings, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy, created access or road-safety problems or harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes.

54 of 54 records carry official reason text

109 published statements, 2.0 per analysed application

29 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

19 Design + Missing evidence
19 Design + Residential amenity
18 Design + Zoning/policy

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements

01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 37
02 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 24
03 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 23
04 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 22
05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 20
06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 13
07 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 13
08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 11
09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 10
10 Built heritage or archaeology 6

Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.

How this is counted

Reporting window 24–30 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for all 54 records in this weekly snapshot. Every figure is calculated offline from official refusal reason text retained in this snapshot.

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 development47
Development plan cited43
Undesirable precedent cited19

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

Refusal decisions · 24–30 Aug 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 49 case links · 54 lead matches

Refused 26 Aug 2026

Dunbeggan, Stonepark, Longford, Longford

Dunbeggan, Stonepark, Longford

Longford County Council · 2660162

What was proposed

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.

Official decision evidence

Open official case Planning case · 2660162