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

Corsallagh, Cloonacool, Co Sligo, Sligo

Corsallagh, Cloonacool, Co Sligo

Sligo County Council · 2660340

What was proposed

for a material change of use of an existing dwelling from a residential unit to short term letting with all associated site works at

Refusal reason

The change of use of a dwelling house to short-term letting would result in the loss of a ns residential unit from the available supply of residential accommodation, would contribute to the existing shortage of residential accommodation for permanent occupation and long- -I term rental within Sligo and contrary to policy SP-HOU-1 of the Sligo County Development Plan 2024-2030 (As Varied). In addition, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of the Core Strategy of the County Development Plan, 2024-2030 which seeks to il secure national and regional policy in meeting the housing needs of the County and would nc therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ou C n ty ou C o ig Sl

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet