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

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

Refused

Ballynageeragh, Dunhill, Co. Waterford, Waterford

Ballynageeragh, Dunhill, Co. Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2560752

What was proposed

the construction of a residential development containing 44No. dwelling units comprising of 1 No. 4 bed two-storey detached unit, 15No. 4 bed two-storey semi-detached units, 17No. 3 bed two-storey semi-detached units, 4No. 2 bed single-storey detached units, 2No. 2 bed single-storey semi-detached units, 4No. 2 bed two-storey semi-detached units and 1No. 2 bed two-storey terrace unit, together with and all associated site development works including, associated car-parking, site landscaping, footpath links to Dunhill village external to subject site, connection to storm and foul services and the construction of a new vehicular entrance to site from L-4009

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

67 Gracedieu rd, Gibbet hill, Waterford City, X91 HW8N, Waterford

67 Gracedieu rd, Gibbet hill, Waterford City, X91 HW8N

Waterford City and County Council · 2660557

What was proposed

change of use of the existing 2 bedroom terrace house to use as short-term tourist letting accommodation (holiday/visitor letting), together with all ancillary site works and services. No external alterations or extension to the existing building are proposed as part of this application; the building fabric is retained as existing

Refusal reason

The use of the subject property for short-term letting would result in the loss of suitable accommodation for both long-term rental and/or permanent owner/occupier accommodation at a time of an acute housing shortage. Furthermore, it is considered owing to the nature of the use, the use of the property for short-term letting would impact negatively on the residential amenity of the area, would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals in the surrounding area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

39 Carn Glas, Gracedieu, Waterford, X91 ATV7, Waterford

39 Carn Glas, Gracedieu, Waterford, X91 ATV7

Waterford City and County Council · 2660556

What was proposed

for a gated access to rear garden, together with all other associated ancillary site works.

Refusal reason

The proposed development would cause an increased risk to public safety by means of a traffic hazard owing to the location of the proposed pedestrian gate adjoining Carn Glas Grove at a location where there is no public footpath, would set an undesirable precent for similar type developments and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet