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

Drummin, Borrisokane Road, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Tipperary

Drummin, Borrisokane Road, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary

Tipperary County Council · 2561308

What was proposed

construction of 68 houses, 2 domestic garages, roads, footpaths, green areas, connection to the public services and access via the existing Drummin Village estate road network together with associated site development works

Refusal reasons
  1. As per the Nenagh and Environs Local Area Plan 2024 - 2030, the north-eastern edge of the application site is zoned for ‘Amenity’ use. The proposal for a dwelling and associated residential infrastructure on this land use would materially contravene the 'Amenity’ zoning objective which seeks to preserve and enhance open space, biodiversity and amenity uses and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Having regard to: • The amended development layout provided as further information. • The content and recommendations contained in the Road Safety Audit submitted as further information. • The failure to incorporate the recommendations of the Road Safety Audit into the amended development layout. • The requirements of Section 6.3 of Volume, 3 Appendix 6 of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022. • The requirements of the Design Manual For Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS). The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal has adequately provided for vehicular and pedestrian safety. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet