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

3 of 3 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

2 An Cluain, Breagagh Valley, Castle Oaks, Co. Kilkenny, Kilkenny

2 An Cluain, Breagagh Valley, Castle Oaks, Co. Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2660444

What was proposed

for the conversion of existing garden room building measuring 19.2 sq. m. to a commercial gym for personal training of 1-2 people maximum at a time with WC facilities and ancillary works at the rear of my property

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

No.10 Ardilea, Castlecomer Rd, Kilkenny, R95 N6T3, Kilkenny

No.10 Ardilea, Castlecomer Rd, Kilkenny, R95 N6T3

Kilkenny County Council · 2660068

What was proposed

for - 1. Material change of use of existing detached domestic garage to use as a 2 storey dormer style family flat. 2. Associated elevational modifications with new windows and doors. 3. Solar panel installation to roof- installed in line with existing roof pitch. 4. Flat roof covered veranda to side. 5. all associated site works.

Refusal reasons

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Ferryhouse, Kilmore, New Ross, Co. Kilkenny, Kilkenny

Ferryhouse, Kilmore, New Ross, Co. Kilkenny

Kilkenny County Council · 2625

What was proposed

for 3 no. Bell Tents, shower and toilet unit with new sewage treatment system and all ancillary works

Refusal reasons
  1. Within the statutory timeframe the applicant has failed to demonstrate that effluent can be discharged to the ground at the subject site without risk to public health or the environment. In y! this regard it is noted that the proposed percolation area is inadequately sited and contains insufficient clear open space to comply with the EPA’s 2021 code of practice ‘Domestic nl Wastewater Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent <10)’ and minimum separation O distances to safely discharge effluent within the limited confines of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is prejudicial to public health and the environment s se and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. po
  2. The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard because required sightlines measured in both horizontal and vertical planes have not been accurately r surveyed or demonstrated in accordance with National Roads Authority –Design Manual for Pu Roads and Bridges standards for this local county road and is therefore contrary to proper planning and development. g
  3. in The applicant has not submitted a feasibility connection agreement from Uisce Eireann in w relation to water supply connection to serve the proposed development. In the absence of a water ie connection agreement, the proposed development is therefore considered premature and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. -V il
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet