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

Killagoley, Enniscorthy Rural, Wexford

Killagoley, Enniscorthy Rural

Wexford County Council · 20261029W

What was proposed

Permission to construct a serviced dwelling house with connections to existing public services (Planning Registry No. 20260073W refers) and to carry out all associated ancillary site works

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development, if permitted, would set a precedent for low density development on zoned lands and would prohibit future plans to serve and access the said lands. Having regard to the site location on serviceable lands in proximity to the town centre and availability of local services and public transport nodes, it is considered that the proposed development does not provide for a sufficiently high density of development as to ensure an acceptable efficiency in land usage. It is considered that the proposed development would represent an inefficient and unsustainable use of serviced, zoned land, which would be contrary to the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2024) and the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 (as amended).
  2. The proposed development is set back behind the building line as established under 20231470 and 20260073W. The proposed siting and design of the development is not considered acceptable and is contrary to sections 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 and objectives TV 14, TV15, TV 21 and TV27 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028.
  3. The proposed development would endanger road safety by reason of a traffic hazard as it would intensify turning movements onto Springvalley Heights.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Killeens, Wexford Rural, Wexford

Killeens, Wexford Rural

Wexford County Council · 20251259W

What was proposed

Permission for elevational changes to an existing office building and for the addition of 3 no. apartments above ground floor, together with all associated and ancillary site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet