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

Refusal decisions · 24–30 Aug 2026

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

Refused

Higginstown, Kilbeggan, Co.Westmeath, Westmeath

Higginstown, Kilbeggan, Co.Westmeath

Westmeath County Council · 2660365

What was proposed

to Construct One Number Detached Dwelling, One Number Detached Garage, To Upgrade Existing Entrance To Public Road, To Install A Private Well, To Install A Pumped Tertiary Wastewater Treatment System With Coco Filter And Raised Infiltration Bed And All Associated Site Works

Refusal reasons
  1. Rural Housing Need Policy The subject site is located in a rural area outside any designated settlement and in an area under strong urban influence where development which is not rural generated should be more properly located in towns and villages and designated settlements. On the basis of the documentation submitted, and in the absence of satisfactory justification to the contrary, it is considered that the applicant does not come within the scope of the criteria for rural housing at this location. To permit the development as proposed would contravene Councils policy objective CPO 9.1 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would be contrary to the Sustainable Rural Housing - Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2005. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Siting, Scale and Design The proposed dwelling is positioned set back from the public road and does not align with the established pattern of rural housing in Higginstown, where dwellings are generally clustered along the roadside. The siting therefore represents an isolated form of backland development and fails to comply with CPO 9.14 and the siting principles under CPO 16.32. More appropriate locations appear to exist within the wider landholding, including sites closer to existing dwellings. The development would therefore fail to integrate with the rural landscape character and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Appropriate Assessment Screening Report Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed development, the location of the site within an area of high groundwater vulnerability, its hydrological connectivity to the River Brosna and the potential for a downstream pathway to the Split Hills and Long Hill Esker SAC, it is considered that the proposed development has the potential to give rise to impacts on a European site, including through effects on water quality and the receiving aquatic environment. In the absence of sufficient information and mitigation measures to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the European site, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the development would not result in significant effects on the conservation objectives of the Split Hills and Long Hill Esker SAC. Accordingly, having regard to the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive and to Policies CPO 12.4 and CPO 12.8 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021– 2027, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would be likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European site. The proposed development is therefore considered unacceptable and planning permission is refused.
  4. Ecological Impact Assessment Having regard to the nature and siting of the development proposed, the presence of locally important broadleaved woodland adjoining the site, the potential ecological corridor linkages to Cloncrow Bog NHA, and the sensitivity of the receiving environment as identified in submissions, and in the absence of an Ecological Impact Assessment to assess potential impacts on protected habitats, Annex IV species, ecological corridors and locally important biodiversity sites, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not give rise to significant adverse ecological effects. To permit the development as proposed would therefore be contrary to CPO 12.8 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021–2027 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Refused

Corcloon, Milltownpass, Co. Westmeath, Westmeath

Corcloon, Milltownpass, Co. Westmeath

Westmeath County Council · 2660362

What was proposed

development which will consist of the demolition of the lean-to extension to the rear of the existing dwelling, renovation and alterations to the existing dwelling, and the construction of a part two-storey, part single-storey rear and side extension (circa. 200msq.), new septic tank, percolation area and all associated site works and services

Refusal reason

The existing dwelling, although currently derelict, is considered to be of vernacular merit. The proposed extension, by virtue of its scale, height, massing, form and overall bulk, is considered disproportionate to the existing one-and-a-half-storey vernacular dwelling. It would visually dominate and effectively subsume the original structure, diminishing its architectural character and integrity and adversely affecting its contribution to the rural landscape. The proposal fails to respect the scale, proportions and traditional form of the host dwelling and would not assimilate satisfactorily with it and would be contrary to Policy Objective CPO 9.25 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and to the proposed planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence