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

Grange Upper, Stradbally, Co. Laois, R32 W9K6, Laois

Grange Upper, Stradbally, Co. Laois, R32 W9K6

Laois County Council · 2660505

What was proposed

(1) permission of sub-division of site; (2) permission for a domestic shed (3) permission for domestic arts/music/studio pavilion building and all associated site works. Retention permission is sought to (1) retain change of use from garage to 1 bedroom dwellinghouse; (2) retain septic tank treatment system; (3) and all associated site works.

Refusal reasons
  1. The subject site is located in an area designated as a Stronger Rural Area as per Table 4.4 of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. As such the onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that they comply with the rural housing policy of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. On the basis of the information submitted, the Applicant has not demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the local need criteria as set out in Table 4.4 of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. Accordingly, the proposed development would materially contravene the policies and objectives of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. Having regard to the rural design principles outlined in Policy RH 10, Policy DM RH 1 and Appendix 7 ‘Rural Design Guidance’ of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027, it is considered that the proposed dwelling does not adhere to these standards and provisions. It is considered that the proposed log cabin style development would, if granted permission, seriously injure the visual amenity of the area and set an undesirable precedent for the construction of other such developments in the area. Accordingly, the proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. Having regard to the vehicular access to the site which is located on the Local Tertiary Road L-78321-0 and the absence of adequate sightlines of 3m x 60m, as required under the provisions of the Laois County Development Plan 2021- 2027, to comply with the Roads and Parking Standards 2007, the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, the obstruction of road users and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet