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

1 of 1 cards shown · 48 case links · 0 linked projects

Refused

Saint Brelades, Moss Lane, Dublin Road, Portlaoise, Co. Laois, R32 DEH1, Laois

Saint Brelades, Moss Lane, Dublin Road, Portlaoise, Co. Laois, R32 DEH1

Laois County Council · 2660601

What was proposed

replace 1 no. illuminated 12.8m x 3.35m advertising display with 1 no. 6.28m x 3.4m digital advertising display and all associated site works and services

Refusal reasons
  1. Road Safety y! The proposed development is located on the R-445, a highly trafficked Strategic nl Regional Road. Given the proposed developments prominent location at an O entrance to the town centre from the eastern approach, it has the potential to es cause distraction to motorists. Permitting such a development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would therefore be contrary to the os proper planning and sustainable development of the area. rp Pu
  2. Residential and Visual Amenity g By its nature, the proposed development will generate a high degree of light in pollution. With a number of dwellings nearby, there is the potential to seriously w injure the residential amenity of the surrounding area. Permitting such a V ie potentially disruptive development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. y, rit
  3. Impact on Protected Structures o th The proposed development is located within 50 meters of three protected Au structures, references RPS188_A, RPS188_B and RPS 934. The proposed development has the potential to significantly detract from these structures and g injure the architectural significance of their presence. Therefore, permitting the in proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and nn sustainable development of the area. la lP n ci ou C ty n ou C s oi La
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet