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

1 of 1 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Forgney, Ballymahon, County Longford, N91 TPN3, Longford

Forgney, Ballymahon, County Longford, N91 TPN3

Longford County Council · 2660217

What was proposed

the change of use and conversion of an existing detached domestic garage to a two bedroom dormer dwelling, together with all associated elevational alterations, internal modifications, connection to existing services, site works, landscaping, and all ancillary works necessary to facilitate the development

Refusal reasons
  1. The site is located within Rural Areas Under Strong Urban Influence, where the National Planning Framework, the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy and the Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027 require that new housing in the open countryside be strictly limited to persons with a demonstrable economic or social need to reside in the rural area. The applicant’s rural housing need has already been met through the existing permitted dwelling on the landholding (Reg. Ref. PL24/60187). The proposed conversion of a domestic garage—permitted solely as an ancillary structure—to a second independent dwelling would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would contribute to urban-generated housing pressure in a controlled rural area. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that any additional rural housing need exists to justify a second dwelling. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate wastewater treatment and disposal arrangements exist on the site. The submitted Site Characterisation Report is based on an outdated 2014 assessment prepared under the superseded EPA Code of Practice (2009) and does not comply with the EPA Code of Practice (2021). In the absence of updated percolation testing, population-equivalent calculations and confirmation of the operational status of the existing Bison treatment system, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not give rise to a risk of pollution. Development of the kind proposed would therefore be premature by reference to an existing deficiency in sewerage facilities, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, obstruction of road users and inadequate access with the site. No sightline drawings, entrance geometry details or surface water drainage proposals have been submitted. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the proposed development would provide an acceptable standard of traffic safety and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet