Refusal decisions · 12–18 Oct 2026

59Refusals
47Official evidence
47Substantive reasons
0Verification only
12Pending
12 of 59 refusal decisions are awaiting official decision evidence and not included below.

The refusal total is final. 47 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.

47 of 59 records carry official reason text

109 published statements, 2.3 per analysed application

27 refused on more than one ground, up to 7

Most common pairs

  1. 22 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 18 Design + Residential amenity
  3. 16 Design + Missing evidence

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 35
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 28
  3. 03 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 20
  4. 04 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 20
  5. 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 19
  6. 06 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 14
  7. 07 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 12
  8. 08 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 11
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 7
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 4
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 12–18 Oct 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 47 of 59 refusal decisions; theme percentages use those 47 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 development42
  • Development plan cited40
  • Undesirable precedent cited19

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

Refusal decisions · 12–18 Oct 2026

3 of 3 cards shown · 47 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Loughanure Commons, Clane, Co. Kildare, Kildare

Loughanure Commons, Clane, Co. Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660956

What was proposed

the construction of a part single storey & storey and a half dwelling house and a garage for domestic use, installation of an on-site wastewater treatment system, provision of a new recessed site entrance & driveway and all associated ancillary site development works above and below ground

Refusal reasons
  1. Objective HO O59 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 seeks to “carefully rp manage Single Rural Dwelling Densities to ensure that the density of one-off housing does not exceed 30 units per square kilometre, unless the applicant is actively engaged in Pu agriculture, or an occupation that is heavily dependent on the land and building on their own landholding.” The proposed development would be the 95 th dwelling within one square kilometre of the subject site. In conjunction with the level of existing development in the n vicinity, it is considered that the proposed development would exacerbate an excessive io density of development in this rural area and would contribute to the increasing ct suburbanisation of the area. The proposed development would materially contravene Objective HO O59 and Policy HO P26 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 pe and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ns
  2. Policy HO P12 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 seeks to ‘Ensure that the -I siting and design of any proposed dwelling shall integrate appropriately with its physical surroundings and the natural and cultural heritage of the area whilst respecting the character il of the receiving environment. Proposals must comply with Appendix 4 Rural House Design nc Guide and Chapter 15 Development Management Standards.’ The proposed development, by virtue of its overall design, form, scale and external appearance would not comply with current ou rural house design requirements as contained in Appendix 4 Rural House Design Guide of the County Development Plan (CDP). It is considered therefore that the proposed development C would contravene policy HO P12, and Appendix 4 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 and taken in conjunction with the site’s location within the River Liffey Valley & y Plains Landscape Character Area (Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029, as varied) nt on lands designated as Medium-High Sensitivity where it is a guiding principle to retain the ou strong, largely intact, rural character of this Landscape Character Area in order to contain urban expansion and pressures and in the absence of a detailed landscaping plan, prepared C by a suitably qualified landscape architect, the proposed development would result in the dwelling appearing visually incongruous, and if granted would seriously injure the visual and e character amenities of the area and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable ar development of the area. ld Ki An Rannóg Pleanála Planning Department y
  3. Policy HO P11 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 seeks to facilitate nl proposals for dwellings in the countryside outside of settlements in conjunction with the Rural O Housing Policy Zones map and accompanying Schedule of Category of Applicant and Local Need Criteria. Insufficient documentary evidence regarding address records has been s provided, and as such the Applicant has not fully demonstrated compliance with the Local se Need Criteria which is in an area under Strong Urban Influence as identified in the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 and therefore is contrary to Policy HO P11 of the o Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 and to the proper planning and sustainable rp development of the area. Pu
  4. The works required to what appears to be an existing unauthorised entrance to provide for a recessed site entrance and driveway, at a rural location, situated off a narrow laneway would result in an overly-engineered intervention for a rural location and would diminish the rural n character of the area especially having regard to the location of the site within the River Liffey io Valley & Plains Landscape Character Area which is designated as a Medium to High ct Sensitivity. The proposed development would be contrary to Appendix 4 Rural House Design Guide and Section 15.7.6 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 which seeks pe ’..to discourage the proliferation of access points onto public roads...’, and if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar type development elsewhere in the County, and ns would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. -I il nc ou C y nt ou C e ar ld Ki
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Tuckmilltown, Straffan, Co Kildare, Kildare

Tuckmilltown, Straffan, Co Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660953

What was proposed

planning permission to construct a 2 storey dwelling, double garage, waste water treatment system and raised percolation area, bored well, new entrance, general landscaping and all associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development would be the 43rd dwelling within a 1km radius of the subject site, rp which exceeds the maximum acceptable density of 30 and would therefore contravene Policy HO P26 and Objective HO 059 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) which Pu seeks to control rural densities. Furthermore, the dwelling would be the eighth dwelling in a row on the southern side of the L6021 (notwithstanding the minimal gaps between) which is contrary to Policy HO P13 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 which seeks to restrict n further development which would exacerbate or extend an existing pattern of ribbon io development, defined as 5 or more houses along 250 metres on one side of any road. ct Furthermore, this location is categorised as Farmed Foothills with only a medium to low capacity for development as defined in the Landscape Character Assessment (Variation No. 4 of the pe Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029). The proposed development would therefore set an undesirable precedent for similar development of this nature and would therefore be contrary ns to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. -I
  2. The subject site is at risk of pluvial flooding from the River Kill. It is within the 0.1% AEP in the CFRAM High End Future Scenario. A Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment has not been il submitted and therefore the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development is nc not at risk of flooding or will not cause residual flood risk including flooding on adjoining or nearby properties. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy PO P33 of the ou Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029 (as varied) and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. C
  3. Policy HO P12 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029 (as varied) is to ensure that y the siting and design of any proposed dwelling integrates appropriately with its physical nt surroundings whilst respecting the character of the receiving environment. The proposed ou development, by virtue of its two-storey bulk, scale of its two-car garage, its extensive setback from the carriageway and its associated requirement for an extensive new driveway, would C constitute haphazard piecemeal development that would not integrate appropriately with the sites physical surroundings or respect the character of the receiving environment. Furthermore, the e proposed dwelling, by reason of its location being carved out of a larger field, which requires new ar boundary treatments, would result in a development which would unnecessarily fragment the ld Ki An Rannóg Pleanála Planning Department rural landscape. y nl Having regard to the foregoing, it is considered that the design and location of the dwelling does O not respond sensitively to the characteristics of the receiving environment. New dwellings should blend into and not dominate the local landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HO s P12 and Appendix 4 (Rural House Design Guide) of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023- se 2029 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. o
  4. Section 15.7.6 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029 (as varied) seeks to rp discourage the proliferation of access points onto public roads, particularly in areas where the maximum speed limit applies or where road safety is of concern. The removal of an existing Pu agricultural access with no consideration as to how said agricultural lands will be accessed once the subject site is developed is considered inappropriate. The proposed development would therefore likely lead to a requirement for an additional entrance and there is already an over n proliferation in this location off the L6021. The proposed development would therefore conflict io with Section 15.7.6 of Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029 (as varied) by interfering ct with the safety and free flowing nature of traffic on the road, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. pe
  5. Policy HO P11 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 seeks to facilitate proposals ns for dwellings in the countryside outside of settlements in conjunction with the Rural Housing Policy Zones map and accompanying Schedule of Category of Applicant and Local Need Criteria. -I Based on the information submitted with this application, the Applicant has not demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, that they fully comply with the local need criteria, and a il grant of permission in this instance would be premature. nc ou C y nt ou C e ar ld Ki
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Parsonstown, Carbury, Co Kildare, Kildare

Parsonstown, Carbury, Co Kildare

Kildare County Council · 2660946

What was proposed

Permission to construct a single storey detached bungalow, single Storey detached garage, recessed entrance, secondary effluent Treatment system and all associated site works

Refusal reasons
  1. Policy HOP13 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) discourages rp ribbon development (defined as five or more houses alongside 250 metres of road frontage). Taken in conjunction with the existing level of development in this rural area, the proposed Pu development would give rise to the creation of ribbon development as defined by policy HOP 13 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) and result in the extension n of linear development which would erode the rural amenities of the area. The proposed io development, if permitted, would be contrary to the provision of policy HOP13 of the Kildare ct County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) and would therefore be contrary to the proper pe planning and sustainable development of the area. ns
  2. Section 15.7.5 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) requires all applications to clearly indicate the sightlines available at the proposed access and objective HO -I O52 requires all applications to demonstrate the ability to provide safe vehicular access to the site without the necessity to remove extensive stretches of native hedgerow and trees. Based on the information provided relating to sightlines, the Applicant has not satisfactorily il nc demonstrated that the proposed development can achieve the minimum required sightlines, or that extensive removal of hedgerow is required. Therefore, the proposed development, if ou permitted, would pose a traffic hazard and would be contrary to, Section 15.7.5 and objective HO O52 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) and the proper C planning and sustainable development of the area. y nt ou C e ar ld Ki
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet