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

Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Co.Monaghan, Monaghan

Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Co.Monaghan

Monaghan County Council · 2560481

What was proposed

Permission for development consisting of the following: The provision of 28 no. dwellings comprising: 2 No. 2 bed detached bungalow dwellings, 4 no. 2 bed semi-detached bungalow dwellings, 6 No. 2 bed semi-detached two-storey dwellings, 11 No. 3 bed semi-detached two-storey dwellings, 5 no. 4 bed semi-detached two-storey dwellings, Together with revised site layout plans, boundary treatments, hard and soft landscaping, public lighting, drainage and utility services, revised house type drawings and all other ancillary site development works necessary to facilitate the proposed development.

Refusal reason

Objective SHO 4 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 seeks 'To promote and facilitate development that is commensurate with the nature and extent of the existing villages and to support their role as local service centres and locations for housing.' Additionally, Policy RSDP1 and Section 15.8.10 of the Monaghan County Development Plan, requires the submission of evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is demand for the proposed residential development taking account of the extent, nature and status of extant permissions for residential development, and vacant residential properties in the settlement. Section 15.8.10 also notes that the Planning Authority may favourably consider proposals for social housing developments which are outside the defined Tier 4 settlement limits where a clear demonstrable need is proven to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and where lands are contiguous to the settlement limit and can be adequately serviced. The site of the proposed development is substantially located outside the settlement envelope of Doohamlet village and would not represent a coordinated and consolidated pattern of growth. Additionally, the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is a demand for the proposed residential development, either private or social, within the Tier 4 settlement of Doohamlet in accordance with the provisions of Policy RSDP1 and Section 15.8.10. Consequently, the development, if permitted would be contrary to the provisions of the Policy RSDP1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet