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

2 of 2 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Callacoon, Louisburgh, Co. Mayo, F28 PK29, Mayo

Callacoon, Louisburgh, Co. Mayo, F28 PK29

Mayo County Council · 2660563

What was proposed

Planning application to retain and complete dwelling house, wastewater treatment system and all ancillary siteworks and services on a revised site, from that granted on foot of Planning Permissions P06/2427 at Callacoon, Louisburgh, Co. Mayo.

Refusal reasons
  1. Mayo County Council notes the proposal as presented fails to meet the minimum site size requirements as set out under Section 2.3 of Volume 2 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022- 2028. Therefore, the proposed development if permitted would, both by itself and the precedent it would set, interfere with the character of the rural landscape which it is necessary to protect, and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The applicant has failed to establish, based on the site suitability assessment submitted, that the proposed effluent treatment system might not impact negatively on water quality and public health. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Formerly Known as 'The Leaping Lizard', Bridge Street, Westport, County Mayo, F28 F856, Mayo

Formerly Known as 'The Leaping Lizard', Bridge Street, Westport, County Mayo, F28 F856

Mayo County Council · 2660556

What was proposed

CHANGE OF USE FROM COMMERCIAL UNIT TO PRIVATE USE AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND NEW SHOP FRONT FAÇADE, TOGETHER WITH ALL SITE SERVICES AT PREMISES FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ‘LEAPING LIZARD’, BRIDGE STREET, WESTPORT, COUNTY MAYO F28 F856.

Refusal reason

Having regard to short term nature of the proposed commercial development and the shortage of residential accommodation in the town of Westport, it is considered that the development as proposed would be an inappropriate form of residential development (ie. short term) in Westport town centre and would also be injurious to the residential amenities of other residential development in the vicinity of the site and would set an undesirable precedent which would impact negatively on the amenity and viability of existing and future residential developments in the town centre. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet