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

Chrysanthemum Cottage, Chapel Road, Greystones, Co. Wicklow, Wicklow

Chrysanthemum Cottage, Chapel Road, Greystones, Co. Wicklow

Wicklow County Council · 2561046

What was proposed

demolition of the existing cottage on the site (92sqm) and for the construction of 8 no. dwellings consisting of 1 no. 3 bed detached bungalow, 1 no. 3 bed 2 storey terraced dwelling and 6 no. 4 bed 2 storey terraced dwellings with a total gross floor area of 954sqm; for all boundary walls and fences, a communal bin store (10sqm), proposed vehicular and pedestrian entrances to the development off Chapel Road and associated footpaths, hard and soft landscaping and all site services above and below ground including connections to existing services

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to information set out in the Further Information response in respect to surface water drainage, and the extent of works required, the information, it is considered, has not provided the full extents of all of the proposed elements of the proposed Surface Water Drainage System is, including details of construction methods, extents and quantities of excavation regarding clay removal, material importation, membrane utilisation, etc.) and whether such works will impact on the drainage system in the area. In the absence of sufficient clarification of same it is considered that the proposed development would represent a substandard development in terms of layout, nature based Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), and design and would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.
  2. Having regard to your response to the Further Information request, the proposed redesign of the foul drainage system which includes a pumping station and rising main, along with the lack of evidence that Uisce Éireann will take in charge this foul drainage infrastructure, there is a concern that in the absence of clear proposals for the maintenance of the pumping system that in the event of failure it could lead to pollution resulting in a public health hazard, and development would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet