Historical edition · Complete

2026-W35 · revision 20260907T044612Z-quantity-provenance-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

1 of 1 cards shown · 49 case links · 54 lead matches

Refused

Doogans Warren, Rosslare, Wexford

Doogans Warren, Rosslare

Wexford County Council · 20260893

What was proposed

Permisison for the development consisting of extension and amendments to the

Refusal reasons
  1. The application site is located within the designated Coastal Landscape in Volume 7 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and is therefore classed as highly sensitive. It is considered that the proposed height and design of the extension does not consider or take into account sufficiently the sensitive nature of the site. The proposed development would likely result in a significant and detrimental impact on the visual amenities and character of this coastal area and would set an inappropriate and undesirable precedent for further development of this scale within the coastal landscape and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Insufficient information has been received regarding the suitability of the existing dwelling to accommodate the proposed extension and as such would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Planning case · 20260893