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
- 22 Design + Zoning/policy
- 16 Design + Missing evidence
- 16 Design + Residential amenity
All ten refusal themes
Applications · statements- 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 34
- 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 24
- 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 21
- 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 19
- 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 18
- 06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 10
- 07 Built heritage or archaeology 9
- 08 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 8
- 09 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 7
- 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 6
Refusal decisions · 31 Aug–6 Sep 2026
0 of 0 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects