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

1 of 1 cards shown · 47 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Knocks, Ballyfin, Portlaoise, Laois

Knocks, Ballyfin, Portlaoise

Laois County Council · 2660452

What was proposed

construct new dwelling house, septic tank and percolation area, bored well and use existing entrance

Refusal reason

On the basis of the information submitted, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that adequate sight distances due north-east can be achieved at the junction of the y! private lane [not in charge] with County Tertiary Road L-20184-0. nl Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would endanger public O safety by reason of traffic hazard and would therefore be contrary to the proper es planning and sustainable development of the area. os rp Pu g in w V ie y, o rit th Au g in nn la lP n ci ou C n ty ou C s oi La

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet