Refusal decisions · 21–27 Sep 2026

61Refusals
43Substantive reasons
3Verification only
1Document not published
5Portal unavailable
9Manual review

What this means

Applications were most often refused because the proposal did not fit its site or surroundings, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy, created access or road-safety problems or lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable.

43 of 61 records carry official reason text

81 published statements, 1.9 per analysed application

23 refused on more than one ground, up to 5

Most common pairs

  1. 16 Design + Residential amenity
  2. 14 Design + Zoning/policy
  3. 12 Design + Transport/access

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 30
  2. 02 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 21
  3. 03 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 20
  4. 04 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 14
  5. 05 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 14
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 11
  7. 07 Built heritage or archaeology 9
  8. 08 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 6
  9. 09 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 4
  10. 10 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 3
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 21–27 Sep 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 43 of 61 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 43 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 development35
  • Development plan cited36
  • Undesirable precedent cited24

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

Refusal decisions · 21–27 Sep 2026

1 of 1 cards shown · 46 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Silverweir, Paulstown, Co Kilkenny, Kilkenny

Silverweir, Paulstown, Co Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2660489

What was proposed

for 1) change of use of existing car park to a contractor’s yard 2) Retention of storage shed 3) retention for the storage of two containers 4) retention of modifications to east boundary wall 5) retention of existing entrance gate and permission for new landscaping surface water management all associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to Section 4.6 of the Kilkenny City and County Development Plan 2021-2027, which sets out objectives for smaller towns and villages, it is considered the proposed development O by virtue of its location on a former car park associated with a public house, along with the type of commercial activity proposed to be retained associated with a builders contractors yard, would s have a serious negative visual impact on Paulstown rural village settlement. The proposed se development by virtue of its site location, raised northern dividing boundary wall / entrance gate finish, surrounding pattern of development and nature of the proposed activity fails to integrate o with its physical surroundings and would militate against the preservation of the rural village rp environment and surrounding amenity. It is therefore considered that the development at this location would represent an unacceptable visual intrusion that would seriously detract from the Pu amenity of, and be inconsistent with the visual character of the area and surrounding residential land use. As such, the development would conflict with above policy of the Kilkenny County g Development Plan 2021-2027 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. in
  2. Having regard to the nature and extent of the development proposed and to the sites close w proximity to adjoining dwelling units, Marble Court Residential Estate and site location within a ie predominately residential area of Paulstown village, it is considered that, notwithstanding submitted mitigation measures, noise assessment and landscaping plan, that the development of a -V builders contractors yard of the site with associated containers and sheds for the purposes outlined would seriously injure the areas residential amenities by virtue of noise and general disturbance, would be incompatible with existing character and setting of Paulstown village and would be il contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area. nc
  3. The proposed development relates to an existing contractor’s builder’s storage yard which ou represents an unauthorised material change of use of the land and structures on site and that the proposed development would facilitate the consolidation and intensification of unauthorised C commercial use and development issued under ENF25133. Accordingly, it is considered that it y would be inappropriate for the Planning Authority to consider a grant of permission for the nt proposed development in such circumstances. ou C ny en lk Ki
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet