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

Derries TD, Athlone, Co. Westmeath, N37K0V6, Westmeath

Derries TD, Athlone, Co. Westmeath, N37K0V6

Westmeath County Council · 2660448

What was proposed

retention permission for the following works: change of use of building from domestic to commercial. To retain alteration works carried out internally to this building and parking spaces created to the front of the building and within the boundaries of the site

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the location of the development on unzoned and unserviced lands outside a designated settlement boundary, and having regard to Policies CPO 5.3, CPO 5.23, CPO 5.24 and CPO 5.29 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated a need for the veterinary clinic at this rural location or that the development complies with the rural enterprise provisions of the Development Plan. Having regard to its car-dependent nature, separation from services, zoned lands and employment centres, and the absence of any locational justification for a rural siting, the development constitutes an unsustainable form of economic development and its location outside a designated settlement that has not been justified. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would accord with the settlement strategy and economic development objectives of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027 or that it would be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. In the absence of a Traffic Impact Assessment, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the retention of the development would not adversely affect traffic safety. Having regard to the commercial nature of the use, the intensification of activity on the site, and the site's location on a narrow rural cul-de-sac, the development would potentially endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Zone C, Mullingar Business Park, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, Westmeath

Zone C, Mullingar Business Park, Mullingar, Co Westmeath

Westmeath County Council · 2620

What was proposed

The development consisting of the following works, warehouse and process hall with offices and welfare facilities (circa 1895 sq m) new road entrance, 2 no dock levellers to north facing elevation, new concrete yard, staff and visitor parking with all associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet