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

Refusal decisions · 7–13 Sep 2026

6 of 6 cards shown · 86 case links · 3 linked projects

Refused

Rathmore, Carbury, Co. Kildare, Kildare

Rathmore, Carbury, Co. Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660831

What was proposed

for the construction of a new dwelling house, a detached double garage, a stock shed, a new vehicular entrance, installation of a wastewater treatment system, together with all associated site works.

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development, when taken in conjunction with the level of existing development in the vicinity, would exacerbate an excessive density of development in this rural area, would contribute to the further erosion of the rural character of the area and would contravene objective HO O59 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied), which seeks to carefully manage Single Rural Dwelling Densities to ensure that the density of one-off housing does not exceed 30 units per square kilometre pro rata. The proposed development would represent the 50th dwelling within a square kilometre and would therefore materially contravene Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 policy HO O59 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development, being backland development to the rear of unrelated third parties, would be contrary to Policy HO P16 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029, where only family members can be considered for backland development in rural areas. To permit the development would therefore contravene materially HO P16 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Policy HOP11 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) seeks to facilitate, subject to all appropriate environmental assessments proposals for dwellings in the countryside outside of settlements in accordance with NPF Policy NPO 19 for new Housing in the Open Countryside in conjunction with the rural housing policy zone map (Map 3.1) and accompanying Schedule of Category of Applicant and Local Need Criteria set out in Table 3.4. Based on the information submitted with the application, the Applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that they comply with Local Need Criteria. To permit the development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Barraderra, Monasterevan, Co. Kildare., Kildare

Barraderra, Monasterevan, Co. Kildare.

Kildare County Council · 2690

What was proposed

of planning ref no.19/1044, which consists of to construct a bungalow, domestic garage and an Oakstown waste water treatment system, pumped to an Ecoflow coco filter tertiary treatment system, with all facilitating and associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Bank of Ireland, Main Street, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Kildare

Bank of Ireland, Main Street, Maynooth, Co. Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660837

What was proposed

The development will consist of the installation of 2no. digital screens at ground floor level along the northwest elevation. All screens will be located internally within the existing window display.

Refusal reason

The proposed development of 2 no. digital screens at ground floor level on the northern elevation of the Bank of Ireland building is situated in a highly prominent location within the Maynooth Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) and adjoined by two Protected Structures including Court House Square (RPS No. B05-46) and The Leinster Arms (RPS No. B05-46). This type of advertisement in this location is contrary to Table 15.10 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) which states that digital boards/signs are ‘not permitted in an Architectural Conservation Area or on or close to a Protected Structure’. Furthermore, such signage is considered contrary to Objective BHO 2.2 and Section 5.3.8 of Appendix C of the Maynooth and Environs Joint Local Area Plan 2025-2031 as they are incongruous to the existing historic streetscape on this side of Main Street. Therefore, the proposed development, if granted, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for development in the ACA.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Bank of Ireland, Main Street, Newbridge, Co. Kildare, Kildare

Bank of Ireland, Main Street, Newbridge, Co. Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660836

What was proposed

for the installation of 2no. digital screens at ground floor level along the southeast elevation. All screens will be located internally within the existing window display at Bank of Ireland, Main Street, Newbridge, Co. Kildare, W23 RD73, which is a Protected Structure (Ref. No. B23-39/NBHS Ref. 11818028)

Refusal reason

The proposed development of 2 no. digital screens at ground floor level in the southeast elevation and façade of the Bank of Ireland building which is a Protected Structure (RPS B23- 39 and RPS B23-38 and on the NIAH ref no. 11818028 and ref no. 11818027) situated at a highly visible location at the corner of Main Street (R445) and Charlotte Street (R416) in Newbridge would negatively and materially affect a protected structure, would be contrary to policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 including AH O21 and Table 15.10 which states that digital boards/signs are “not permitted … on or close to a Protected Structure, ” and Objective BHO 1.2 of the Newbridge Settlement Plan (Variation 2 of the County Development Plan 2023-2029), that seeks to ‘reduce, prevent…visual and urban clutter within the town centre’, and therefore, the proposed development if granted would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Blackwood, Robertstown, Co Kildare, Kildare

Blackwood, Robertstown, Co Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660807

What was proposed

for the construction of a two storey rear extension to existing two storey house, construction of a two storey front extension to existing two storey house, removal of two storey gable end front projections to existing house, amendments of existing side fenestrations with new doors and windows at ground and first floor level, removal of front stone and brick façade with replacement nappe plaster, construction of single storey side extensions to existing two storey house, installation of new secondary effluent treatment system and all associated site works.

Refusal reason

The proposed development, by reason of its design, excessive mass and scale, would significantly increase the building’s overall bulk in a manner that is visually intrusive and incompatible with the established rural character of the area, particularly as guided by the Rural House Design Guide. The proposal is therefore considered to contravene Objective HO O6, as well as the principles set out in Section 15.4.12 and Appendix 4 (Rural House Design Guide) of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029. If permitted, the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate forms of development and would thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Weavers court, Prosperous, Co. Kildare, Kildare

Weavers court, Prosperous, Co. Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660802

What was proposed

consists of; a) the retention of two separate one (x1) bedroomed residential apartment / studio units, instead of one two (x2) bedroomed residential apartment unit, b) these units are located at first floor level of the existing building, accessed by an existing door at ground level, c) all existing alterations, internal modifications and all existing associated site works.

Refusal reason

Having regard to the inadequate overall floor area of each residential unit, internal storage and lack of private open spaces provided, the development for retention has failed to comply with the relevant standards of the Planning Design Standards for Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2025, which constitute Ministerial Guidelines under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and fails to offer an adequate level of residential amenity which results in substandard development and a detrimental impact on the residential amenities for the occupants. The development is therefore contrary to the Planning Design Standards for Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2025, would set an undesirable precedent for further such development and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet