Refusal decisions · 31 Aug–6 Sep 2026

54Refusals
48Substantive reasons
0Verification only
3Document not published
3Portal unavailable
0Manual review

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.

48 of 54 records carry official reason text

95 published statements, 2.0 per analysed application

27 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 22 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 16 Design + Missing evidence
  3. 16 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 34
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 24
  3. 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 21
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 19
  5. 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 18
  6. 06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 10
  7. 07 Built heritage or archaeology 9
  8. 08 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 8
  9. 09 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 7
  10. 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 6
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 31 Aug–6 Sep 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 48 of 54 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 48 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 development47
  • Development plan cited41
  • Undesirable precedent cited19

1 published reason statement did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 31 Aug–6 Sep 2026

3 of 3 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

ELAGHBEG, BURNFOOT, LIFFORD PO, CO. DONEGAL, Donegal

ELAGHBEG, BURNFOOT, LIFFORD PO, CO. DONEGAL

Donegal County Council · 2661317

What was proposed

(1) RETENTION OF (A) CLOSED OFF ENTRANCE AND (B) ACCESS ROAD AND (2) ERECTION OF (A) DWELLING HOUSE WITH WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND PERCOLATION AREA, AND (B) DETACHED DOMESTIC GARAGE, NEW ENTRANCE AND CONNECTION TO EXISTING SERVICES AND ALL ASSOCIATED WORKS

Refusal reasons

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

DRUMACANOO, CHURCHILL, LETTERKENNY PO, CO. DONEGAL, Donegal

DRUMACANOO, CHURCHILL, LETTERKENNY PO, CO. DONEGAL

Donegal County Council · 2661312

What was proposed

ERECTION OF A DWELLING HOUSE WITH WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND ALL OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT WORKS

Refusal reasons

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

DUNDOAN LOWER, DOWNINGS, LETTERKENNY PO, CO. DONEGAL, Donegal

DUNDOAN LOWER, DOWNINGS, LETTERKENNY PO, CO. DONEGAL

Donegal County Council · 2661025

What was proposed

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING HOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING ALL ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

Refusal reasons

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet