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

2 of 2 cards shown · 60 case links · 3 linked projects

Refused

Cloncanon, Edenderry, Co. Offaly, Offaly

Cloncanon, Edenderry, Co. Offaly

Offaly County Council · 2660291

What was proposed

1. Renovation and upgrade works to existing cottage including (i) New natural slate roof covering (ii) new doors and windows 2. Construction of proposed single storey and storey and a half type extensions to rear of existing dwelling 3. Decommission existing septic tank and replace with a Proprietary Wastewater Treatment Unit with a Tertiary Filter Proposed 4. Construction of new recessed entrance 5. All associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Kilcolgan More, Ferbane, Co. Offaly, Offaly

Kilcolgan More, Ferbane, Co. Offaly

Offaly County Council · 2660390

What was proposed

a dwelling house and domestic garage, to include a septic tank and percolation area, proposed bored well water supply, new site entrance and all associated site works

Refusal reason

The subject site is located in open countryside that is identified as a ‘Area Under Strong Urban Influence’ in the Offaly County Development Plan 2021-2027. In such areas it is development plan policy that certain categories of applicants, which are defined in policy SSP-27 of the County Development Plan, will be given a positive presumption for the development of a permanent rural home. The Council considers that the applicant does not comply with policy SSP-27 as the applicant has previously owned a house in the open countryside and accordingly the proposed development would materially contravene the Offaly County Development Plan 2021-2027, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ************************** Page 1 of 1

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet