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

1 of 1 cards shown · 86 case links · 3 lead matches

Refused

Crantahar, Claremorris, Co. Mayo, Mayo

Crantahar, Claremorris, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660565

What was proposed

Retention permission to include four single storey general storage buildings, three single storey buildings comprising twenty five number rental self storage units, one single storey general storage building incorporating 11 number rental self storage units, one 2-storey building comprising offices and general storage, caretaker apartment and independent toilet facility for site use, together with septic tank and percolation area, ancillary concrete yards and storage compounds, site entrance, circulation and lighting, and all ancillary site works and services

Refusal reasons
  1. The development seeking retention is situated in a rural and un-serviced area does not constitute a rural enterprise, or an enterprise which requires a rural location. It is therefore considered that the development seeking retention would contravene materially development objective (EDO 54) of Volume 1 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, which seeks to; facilitate rural enterprises, and resource development (such as agriculture, agrifood sector, agri-tourism, commercial fishing, aquaculture, rural tourism, forestry, bio- energy, the extractive industry, recreation, cultural heritage, marine enterprise sector, research and analysis) and renewable energy resources (such as wind/ solar/ocean energy) that are dependent on their locality in rural locations, where it can be demonstrated that the development will not have significant adverse effects on the environment, including the integrity of the Natura 2000 network, residential amenity or visual amenity. It is considered therefore, that the proposed retention, both by itself and the precedent it would set, would seriously injure the amenities and depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The commercial development seeking retention does not constitute an agricultural enterprise or an enterprise that requires to be situated in a rural location, and would therefore set an undesirable precedent for further non-agricultural/rural enterprise type developments to be located in similar rural locations, which would have the potential to impact negatively on the character, amenity and environment of rural areas, thereby impact on the rural landscape, which it is necessary to preserve, while simultaneously impacting negatively on the economy of designated serviced settlements within the county where appropriately zoned and fully serviced lands are available. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The access to the development seeking retention is located on local road L-55516 local road, approximately 60m from the junction with the N60 national secondary road, and therefore fails to meet the required set back of 115 m from the junction of a local and National Route, as required under Table 5 of Volume 2, Development Management Standards, of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, furthermore the L-55516/ N60 junction, and the L-55516 road are considered substandard in layout, geometry and alignment, for the purpose of accommodating increased traffic/commercial traffic. It is considered therefore that the development it is proposed to retain would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.
  4. Having regard to insufficient evidence for the safe disposal of domestic effluent on site, it is considered that it has not been established the site can be drained satisfactorily, notwithstanding the use of a conventional septic tank system. The planning authority has therefore serious concerns about the attenuation (retention time) and safe disposal of domestic effluent on site. The proposed retention would, if permitted, be prejudicial to public health and may pose an unacceptable risk to Planning and Development Section Áras and Chontae, Castlebar, Co. Mayo www.mayo.ie | 0949064000 surface waters, which could adversely affect the integrity and conservation objectives of designated European sites for protected flora and fauna, and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case No PlanningBrief match