Refusal decisions · 7–13 Sep 2026

103Refusals
86Substantive reasons
0Verification only
12Document not published
0Portal unavailable
5Manual 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, created access or road-safety problems, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable or harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes.

86 of 103 records carry official reason text

178 published statements, 2.1 per analysed application

47 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 34 Design + Transport/access
  2. 33 Design + Zoning/policy
  3. 28 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 63
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 46
  3. 03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 42
  4. 04 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 36
  5. 05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 31
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 24
  7. 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 16
  8. 08 Built heritage or archaeology 13
  9. 09 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 13
  10. 10 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 12
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Reporting window 7–13 Sep 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 86 of 103 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 86 substantive-reason decisions as the denominator. Every figure is calculated offline from official refusal reason text retained in this snapshot.

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 development83
  • Development plan cited78
  • Undesirable precedent cited41

4 published reason statements did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 7–13 Sep 2026

0 of 0 cards shown · 86 case links · 3 lead matches