Refusal decisions · 14–20 Sep 2026

80Refusals
60Official evidence
60Substantive reasons
0Verification only
20Pending
20 of 80 refusal decisions are awaiting official decision evidence and not included below.

The refusal total is final. 60 evidence-complete decision cards are available below.

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, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes or created access or road-safety problems.

60 of 80 records carry official reason text

132 published statements, 2.2 per analysed application

31 refused on more than one ground, up to 7

Most common pairs

  1. 23 Design + Missing evidence
  2. 23 Design + Zoning/policy
  3. 19 Design + Residential amenity

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 42
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 31
  3. 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 26
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 23
  5. 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 21
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 17
  7. 07 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 15
  8. 08 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 15
  9. 09 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 13
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 9
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 14–20 Sep 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 60 of 80 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 60 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 development54
  • Development plan cited52
  • Undesirable precedent cited27

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

Refusal decisions · 14–20 Sep 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 60 case links · 3 linked projects

Refused

Ballymackea More, Quilty, Co. Clare, Clare

Ballymackea More, Quilty, Co. Clare

Clare County Council · 2660491

What was proposed

to revise house design & ground floor plan of Ref No P22/136 and to change applicant name as pertinent to condition No 2(a) of Ref No P22/136 to Thomas Darcy

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet