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

Parnell Street, Thurles, Co. Tipperary, Tipperary

Parnell Street, Thurles, Co. Tipperary

Tipperary County Council · 2560882

What was proposed

change of use of existing ground floor from barber shop/retail to living accommodation and all associated site works - Protected Structure Reference Number RPS 18

Refusal reason

Policy 13-1 of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 seeks to encourage and support the sympathetic restoration, re-use and maintenance of protected structures thereby ensuring their conservation and protection. Policy 7.5 of the Thurles & Environs Local Area Plan 2024 seeks to preserve structures and features of architectural and historic interest which add to the character and appearance of the town. Having regard to: • The designation of the building to which the application relates as a Protected Structure TRPS 2413. • The significant limitations with the Architectural Heritage Impact Assessment (AHIA) which do not adequately assess the impact of the development on the character and special interest of the protected structures. • The above references policies of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 and Thurles and Environs Local Area Plan 2024 It is considered that the proposed development would not result in the sympathetic restoration, re-use and maintenance of the building which is a Protected Structure and would not preserve the features of interest associated with this structure. The proposed development would conflict with Policy 7.5 of the Thurles Local Area Plan 2024 and Policy 13-1 of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposal if permitted would create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals of this nature and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet