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

Castleruddery Upper, Baltinglass, Co. Wicklow, Wicklow

Castleruddery Upper, Baltinglass, Co. Wicklow

Wicklow County Council · 2660073

What was proposed

406 sqm soil screening storage shed for existing infill site and associate works

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to a) The permitted development PRR: 20/1291 for the importation of inert soil and stone, b) The justification put forward for the proposed storage shed to screen and store organic material, c) The scale of the shed; It is considered that insufficient justification has been provided to confirm the requirement of the proposed shed and therefore to permit a shed of this scale in association with the permitted commercial development would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
  2. The proposed development would be premature pending the determination by the Roads Authority of the proposed N81 improvement scheme, specifically Junction 8. The existing site access will be impacted by the proposed junction 8 layout and a new access arrangement will be required to serve the subject site, given that the access strategy for this site remains unresolved and is directly linked to the N81 improvement scheme, this application is considered premature.
Official decision evidence
Open official case No PlanningBrief match