Refusal decisions · 19–25 Oct 2026

60Refusals
47Substantive reasons
1Verification only
3Document not published
2Portal unavailable
7Manual review

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, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes, created access or road-safety problems or lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable.

47 of 60 records carry official reason text

79 published statements, 1.7 per analysed application

19 refused on more than one ground, up to 7

Most common pairs

  1. 17 Design + Zoning/policy
  2. 14 Design + Residential amenity
  3. 10 Residential amenity + Zoning/policy

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 31
  2. 02 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 20
  3. 03 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 18
  4. 04 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 17
  5. 05 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 8
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 8
  7. 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 8
  8. 08 Built heritage or archaeology 8
  9. 09 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 4
  10. 10 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 3
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Week of 19–25 Oct 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 47 of 60 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 development43
  • Development plan cited36
  • Undesirable precedent cited26

3 published reason statements did not fit the ten substantive themes.

Refusal decisions · 19–25 Oct 2026

2 of 2 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

8 Oakpark Demesne, Cloonalour, Tralee, Kerry

8 Oakpark Demesne, Cloonalour, Tralee

Kerry County Council · 2660834

What was proposed

Retention permission for the material widening of a means of access to a public road and retention permission for the provision of a hard surface in the area of the garden forward of the front building line of the house for car parking and all associated site development works

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed entrance to be retained contravenes Section 1.5.7.6. Vol 6. of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 that limits the width of entrances to 3 metres. The proposed es development to be retained would, therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. os
  2. The proposed development to be retained by itself and by reason of the precedent that a grant of rp retention planning permission would set, would seriously injure the amenities of the area. The Pu proposed development to be retained would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. n io ct pe ns -I ity or th Au ng ni an Pl rry Ke
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

TARMONS WEST, TARBERT, CO KERRY, Kerry

TARMONS WEST, TARBERT, CO KERRY

Kerry County Council · 2191472

What was proposed

CONSTRUCT (A) A NEW DWELLING SERVICED BY A MECHANICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNIT AND SAND POLISHING FILTER (B) A VEHICULAR SITE ENTRANCE AND (C) ALL ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

Refusal reasons

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet