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

Silver Birches, Dunbeggan, Stonepark, Longford, Co. Longford, Longford

Silver Birches, Dunbeggan, Stonepark, Longford, Co. Longford

Longford County Council · 2660078

What was proposed

a proposed residential development of 30 no. dwelling houses consisting of; 24 no. three bedroom two storey semi-detached type houses of which there are four designs, 6 no. two bedroom two storey terraced type dwelling houses in two blocks of three units each, proposed access road, boundary fences/walls, green open space, all of which will be accessed via the existing internal road network servicing the existing estate, proposed connections to the existing foul sewer, surface water & watermain networks servicing the existing estate, boundary fences/walls and all ancillary works whereby design amendments have been made and an appropriate assessment screening has now been submitted as part of this application

Refusal reasons
  1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure, including the pumping station and rising main, has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional loading arising from the proposed development without risk of y system overloading or discharge to the receiving river, which is currently nl identified as being at risk. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate O that the proposed development would not give rise to pollution of waters or a risk to public health. The proposed development would therefore be es prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. os
  2. The proposed development, by reason of its poor urban design and repetitive rp architectural treatment, together with inadequate secure cycle parking, EV Pu charging, landscaping, and open space would result in a substandard residential development. The proposal would be contrary to the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning n Authorities (2024), the Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027 and the io proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ct pe ns -I il nc ou C y nt ou C rd fo ng Lo
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet