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

Kilsallagh Lower, Westport, Co. Mayo, Mayo

Kilsallagh Lower, Westport, Co. Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660668

What was proposed

Permission for development at Kilsallagh Lower, Westport, Co. Mayo. The proposed development will consist of the construction of a dwelling with proprietary wastewater treatment system, percolation area and all associated site works.

Refusal reason

Based on the trial hole excavated on site and the Site Suitability Report submitted, which does not comply with the EPA Code of Practice for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (Population Au Equivalent <10), and the existing density of domestic dwellings serviced by septic tanks in the immediate vicinity; Mayo County Council is not satisfied that effluent from the development can be satisfactorily treated and disposed of on-site and/ or that groundwater quality would not be adversely g affected. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health, pose an in unacceptable risk of environmental pollution and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable nn development of the area. a Pl

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet