Historical edition · Complete

2026-W35 · revision 20260906T175255Z-refusal-orders-v1-2026-w35

Coverage through 4 Sep 2026

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

  1. 19 Design + Missing evidence
  2. 19 Design + Residential amenity
  3. 18 Design + Zoning/policy

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 37
  2. 02 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 24
  3. 03 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 23
  4. 04 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 22
  5. 05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 20
  6. 06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 13
  7. 07 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 13
  8. 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 11
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 10
  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

2 of 2 cards shown · 49 case links · 54 lead matches

Refused

High Street, Kilkelly, Co. Mayo, Mayo

High Street, Kilkelly, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660544

What was proposed

Planning Permission to retain extension to existing garage and Planning Permission to lower wall and removed palisade fencing in order to improved sightlines visibility and to install bollards to the front of the building so there is a single entry and exit point all as per drawing documentation submitted together with all ancillary site works and services.

Refusal reasons
  1. The site frontage (bollarded, as per site layout plan), remaining active to passing traffic and trade, with certain stopping / parking on the public road and/or footpath due to lack of adequate yard size for the nature of the proposed activities; will give rise to obstructions to and conflict with passing vehicular traffic and vulnerable road users / school children, resulting in compromised road safety, the management of which remains beyond the scope of the development proposals and capabilities of the development control authority.
  2. The site location, on the inside of a bend in the R375 is resulting in poor sight visibility on the R375. The proposed reduction in height of adjacent walls (technically bespoke to the location and limited exactly on the required distances for 50kph speed), relies upon no obstruction to visibility occurring within the visibility triangles; and, for the nature of the proposed activities, at the proposed location, renders ongoing compromised or unreliable road safety standards resulting from the proposed development. The development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Planning and Development Section Áras and Chontae, Castlebar, Co. Mayo www.mayo.ie | 0949064000
  3. The proposed development would facilitate the operation and intensification of an unauthorised structure and would, therefore, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity by reason of traffic movements, noise and general disturbance and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Accordingly, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to consider the grant of a permission for the proposed development in such circumstances
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660544
Refused

Convent Road, Claremorris, Co. Mayo, Mayo

Convent Road, Claremorris, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660540

What was proposed

Planning Permission for change of use of existing vacant commercial buildings to 3no. residential dwelling houses, alter elevations together with car parking spaces and private amenity spaces all as per drawing documentation submitted together with all ancillary site works and services.

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development would result in a substandard and inappropriate form of development that would seriously injure the residential amenities of future occupants by reason of the deficiencies in the quantity and quality of private amenity space and the overall inadequate levels of parking, and would contravene the provisions of the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement, Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development, by virtue of its design and layout would result in the overlooking of adjacent properties, which would seriously injure the residential amenity of the properties in question, and would depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would set an undesirable precedent for further such development. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Planning and Development Section Áras and Chontae, Castlebar, Co. Mayo www.mayo.ie | 0949064000
  3. The proposed development would contravene materially a condition attached to an existing permission for development, namely condition 1 attached to planning reference 25/60145, by encroaching onto an area indicated as private open space in the plans submitted under that permission. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660540