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

Refusal decisions · 31 Aug–6 Sep 2026

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

Refused

Clonmore, Togher, Co.Louth, Louth

Clonmore, Togher, Co.Louth

Louth County Council · 2660481

What was proposed

Permission for a new three-bedroom two storey dwelling, wastewater treatment plant and percolation area, new bored potable well, new site entrance, landscaping with boundary details and all associated site development works

Refusal reason

The proposed development, by reason of the fragmentation of established agricultural land, its scale, form, massing, detailing and its siting and orientation on an elevated and exposed field, together with the proposed sweeping driveway and the site’s lack of sufficient natural screening or backdrop, would fail to sensitively integrate into the surrounding rural landscape. The development, would, if approved, result in a visually obtrusive form of development that would detract from the character and visual amenity of the rural area and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area in this regard. The proposal is therefore considered to contravene Sections 13.9.4, 13.9.8, 13.9.9 and Policy Objectives HOU 44 and HOU 49 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021 2027 (as varied), which seek to ensure that new dwellings in the open countryside are sensitively located and designed to protect the rural character of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Richardstown, Dromin, Dunleer, A92 FK46, Louth

Richardstown, Dromin, Dunleer, A92 FK46

Louth County Council · 2660467

What was proposed

1. Retention permission for dwellinghouse, 2. Retention permission for 2 No. sheds to rear of dwellinghouse, 3. Permission to upgrade existing effluent treatment system and all Associated site development works.

Refusal reasons
  1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the Rural Housing Needs Criteria applicable to Rural Policy Zone 2, an area under strong urban influence, as set out in Policy HOU 43 and Table 3.5 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied). In particular, no completed Qualifying Criteria Form for Housing in the Open Countryside and Rural Nodes, nor any supporting information demonstrating a need to reside in this rural area, has been submitted. In the absence of such information, the Planning Authority cannot establish that the dwellinghouse proposed for retention would have been acceptable in principle at this location. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy objective HOU 43 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied) and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the two shed structures proposed for retention are ancillary and subordinate to the residential use of the dwellinghouse. Having regard to the size and scale of the structures and the associated hardstanding areas, further details are required regarding their nature, function and relationship to the dwelling. In the absence of such information, the Planning Authority is unable to fully assess the acceptability of the structures or their potential impact on the character and amenities of the area. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The existing site entrance serving the development is substandard and fails to provide adequate visibility splays in accordance with the requirements of Section 13.16.17 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied). Based on the assessment of the Major Capital Projects and Infrastructure Delivery Section, the access arrangement would result in substandard forward stopping sight distance for road users travelling in a northerly direction on the L2214 and would introduce an unacceptable traffic hazard, including an increased risk of rear-end collisions. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the development can be served by a safe and suitable means of access, and as such, the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.
  4. The capacity of the proposed wastewater treatment plant is designed for a Person Equivalent (PE) of 6, based on a 4-bedroom house. The existing property is a 5-bedroom property where a minimum PE Capacity of 8 is required. The proposed wastewater treatment plant, if permitted, would be undersized and would be insufficient to cater for the anticipated waste volume from the dwelling. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

12 Palace Street, Drogheda, County Louth, A92 FV10, Louth

12 Palace Street, Drogheda, County Louth, A92 FV10

Louth County Council · 2660331

What was proposed

Retention and Permission to Protected structure – Ref DB-192 – This application comprises both (1) Retention permission for the previously unauthorised sub division of the single dwelling into seven flats and (2) The proposed permission for internal alterations to these seven flats including at lower ground floor level, the demolition of existing non-original internal walls and the creation of new internal doorways; at ground floor level the demolition of internal walls and construction of new internal walls in alternative locations and the relocation of existing internal door within hallway; and at first and second floor levels the works comprise the demolition of non-original internal walls and en-suites and the construction of new internal partitions, relocation of internal doors and the sub-division of existing room at the front of the property. Also, the works will include essential repairs to the roof coverings and structure as necessary and structural repairs to external walls where required

Refusal reason

While the Planning Authority acknowledges that a degree of flexibility may be appropriate where works are required to secure the preservation and continued use of a Protected Structure, the subject development which relates to the provision of seven residential units within a Protected Structure would result in the overdevelopment of the Protected Structure and would result in accommodation standards below those set out in the Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2025) and would be contrary to the residential amenity provisions of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied). The subject development would provide a substandard level of residential amenity for future occupants which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet