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
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 30 of 48 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 30 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 development25
  • Development plan cited26
  • Undesirable precedent cited17

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

Refusal decisions · 21–27 Sep 2026

2 of 2 cards shown · 31 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Tinnabinna, Youghal, Co. Waterford, Waterford

Tinnabinna, Youghal, Co. Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2674

What was proposed

to construct a log cabin dwelling, domestic vehicular entrance, waste water treatment system and all associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Coolnagoppoge, Tramore, County Waterford, Waterford

Coolnagoppoge, Tramore, County Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2660576

What was proposed

for a single storey dwelling, garage, wastewater treatment sysem, percolation area, alter the existing entrance to improve the sightlines and all ancillary site works.

Refusal reason

Having regard to the location of the proposed new house to the rear of the existing houses to the south of the site, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute backland n development and result in an ad hoc and disorderly pattern of development in the rural area, would io have a negative impact on the rural character and detract from the amenities of the area, and would ct set an undesirable precedent for further similar type of development in the area and would, pe therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ns -I y rit t ho Au ng ni an Pl C C C rd erfo at W

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet