Refusal decisions · 21–27 Sep 2026

48Refusals
30Substantive reasons
1Verification only
1Document not published
5Portal unavailable
11Manual review

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, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable or created access or road-safety problems.

30 of 48 records carry official reason text

57 published statements, 1.9 per analysed application

15 refused on more than one ground, up to 5

Most common pairs

  1. 12 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 11 Design + Residential amenity
  3. 8 Design + Transport/access

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 22
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 16
  3. 03 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 12
  4. 04 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 10
  5. 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 8
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 5
  7. 07 Built heritage or archaeology 5
  8. 08 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 4
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 3
  10. 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 2

Refusal decisions · 21–27 Sep 2026

0 of 0 cards shown · 31 case links · 0 linked projects