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

Creeve, Elphin, Co. Roscommon., Roscommon

Creeve, Elphin, Co. Roscommon.

Roscommon County Council · 2660346

What was proposed

Construction of a bungalow dwelling with effluent treatment system, along with site access & all associated site works at

Refusal reasons
  1. The site of the proposed development is not suitable for the safe disposal of effluent in accordance with the 2021 EPA Code of Practice: Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (P.E ≤ 10) having regard to indicators of high water table conditions and/or poor percolation characteristics on site. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. In the absence of sufficiently comprehensive evidence concerning any potential alternative access onto lower category roads available to the applicants, the Planning Authority is not satisfied based on the submitted application documentation that the proposed development which proposes direct access onto Regional Road R-446 is consistent with the provisions of Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028 Volume 1 Policy Objective ITC 7.18 which stipulates that new accesses onto Regional roads will not be permitted where access onto a lower category road is available. The proposed development would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet