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

2 of 2 cards shown · 47 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Ballinlyny, Reens, Ardagh, Co. Limerick., Limerick

Ballinlyny, Reens, Ardagh, Co. Limerick.

Limerick City and County Council · 26196

What was proposed

the construction of a replacement site entrance and to block up the existing site entrance and all associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Sarsfield St., Kilmallock, Co. Limerick., Limerick

Sarsfield St., Kilmallock, Co. Limerick.

Limerick City and County Council · 26194

What was proposed

the installation of additional foul/storm pipework and for creating new window openings on all elevations of the rear extension to the existing main building. Planning permission is also sought for the change of use of the ground floor and 1st floor of the main building which is a Protected Structure, Reg. No. 1371) from retail outlet/dwelling to 3 No. apartments and associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet