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

34 Design + Transport/access
33 Design + Zoning/policy
28 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements

01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 63
02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 46
03 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 42
04 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 36
05 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 31
06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 24
07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 16
08 Built heritage or archaeology 13
09 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 13
10 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 12

Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.

How this is counted

Week of 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 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 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 linked projects

Refused 7 Sep 2026

37 Woodland Heights, Carrickbeg, Carrick on Suir, Co. Tipperary, E32 KF54, Tipperary

37 Woodland Heights, Carrickbeg, Carrick on Suir, Co. Tipperary, E32 KF54

Tipperary County Council · 2694

What was proposed

a portacabin modular building to rear of garden for use by applicant as a home gym

Refusal reason

This application is for the retention of an ancillary domestic structure that is located to the rear of 37 Woodland Heights Carrickbeg Carrick on Suir Co. Tipperary. It is a policy of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 (policy 5-2) to facilitate development in accordance with the Development Management Standards set out in Volume 3 of the Plan. As per Section 4-14 of Volume 3 Appendix 6 Development Management Standards, ancillary domestic structures shall not impact on adjoining residential amenity and shall compliment the appearance and finish of the dwelling. It is an objective of the Carrick on Suir and Environs Local Area Plan 2025 that development proposals on existing residential lands protect and improve residential amenity. It is considered that the structure to be retained, by reason of its form and character, represents an incongruous intervention that does not compliment the appearance and finish of the dwelling on site and would injure the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residential properties. The structure is also considered to impact negatively on the amenity of the adjoining public graveyard. The proposal therefore conflicts with a stated objective of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 (Policy 5-2) and the objective for “existing residential” lands as set out in the Carrick on Suir and Environs Local Area Plan 2025 and is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The development if permitted would also set an undesirable precedent for other similar development.

Official decision evidence

Open official case Not linked yet