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

Fearagh, Hillstreet, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Roscommon., Roscommon

Fearagh, Hillstreet, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Roscommon.

Roscommon County Council · 2660319

What was proposed

Permission to construct domestic dwelling house along with domestic garage, new treatment system and percolation area and all ancillary site development works at

Refusal reason

The site of the proposed development is not suitable for the safe disposal of effluent in accordance with the 2021 EPA Code of Practice: Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (P.E≤ 10) having regard to previous and current indicators of high water table conditions and/or poor percolation characteristics on site, as observed during site inspections, and, the minimum unsaturated soil/subsoil depth that can be achieved, as set out in Table 6.3 of the said EPA Code of Practice (2021). It is therefore considered that the proposed development, if permitted, would therefore 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