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

Maypark House, Maypark Lane, Waterford, Waterford

Maypark House, Maypark Lane, Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2560606

What was proposed

for a change of use from residential care home facility (community infrastructure) to residential use for all buildings on site. Proposed development to provide a Total of 29 No. new units; 25 No. apartments and 4 No. houses (19 No. 1-Bed, 5 No. 2-Bed and 1 No. 3-Bed apartments and 3 No. 2-Bed two-storey & 1 No. 3-Bed two-storey houses). Proposed demolition of modern two-storey extensions to the front & side of the Main Building. Proposed works to include a new two-storey extension to the front & rear of the existing north-western corner of the building, proposed single storey extension to 2 No. existing out-buildings, new first floor extensions to 2 No. existing out-buildings and proposed new flat roofs to existing structures. Alterations to elevations, provision of new balconies, repairs to the external envelope of all buildings where necessary, provision of car parking, bicycle parking, bin storage, and new internal one-way driveway. Connections to existing foul drainage on site, and provision of new soakaways on site, together with all associated site development works on site

Refusal reason

Taking cognisance of the surface water management details provided to the Planning Authority by way of further information which amend the surface water management proposals and provide a hydrological link to the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and in the absence of a Natura Impact Statement (NIS), the Planning Authority considers that the developer has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have potential for adverse impacts on the integrity of the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC) by not supporting the application with a Natura Impact Statement detailing the impacts of the proposed development on the qualifying interest habitats and species of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Therefore, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed development would not, either individually or in combination with other projects, give rise to potential for significant effects on the conservation objectives of the qualifying interest habitats and species of the Lower River Suir SAC. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2560606
Refused

NEWTOWN, TRAMORE, CO. WATERFORD, Waterford

NEWTOWN, TRAMORE, CO. WATERFORD

Waterford City and County Council · 2660494

What was proposed

to build a single storey, detached, agricultural machinery storage building in a floor area of 266.43m2, similar in scale and finish to the existing storage buildings on site, together with the installation of the necessary services and the completion of the site development works. All on his agriculturally related site, with access through the existing sliding gate entrance from the recently modified Tramore Ring Road (R675).

Refusal reasons
  1. The site is zoned Existing Residential under the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022–2028, within which agricultural machinery storage / light industry use is not a permitted use. The proposed development would further intensify and consolidate an incompatible use on residentially zoned lands, would be contrary to the zoning objective to provide for residential development and protect and improve residential amenity, and would therefore materially contravene the policy and objectives of the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022–2028 and would thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development would further intensify an agricultural machinery storage and maintenance use within an established residential area and consolidate unauthorized development at the site. Having regard to the scale of the proposed building and the associated machinery storage, movements and activity, the development would adversely affect residential amenity and would perpetuate an incompatible land-use pattern, and thus would detract from existing residential amenities and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 2660494