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

Lackafinna, Cong, Co. Mayo, F31E132, Mayo

Lackafinna, Cong, Co. Mayo, F31E132

Mayo County Council · 2660690

What was proposed

For permission to construct an extension to the rear of our dormer house and also to add a full first floor across the entire house all to have a two story flat roof structure also a single story porch to the front of the house with a flat roof and to refurbish and upgrade the remaining existing area of the house.

Refusal reason

The proposed development due to its scale massing and design, would contravene “Objective RHO 5” of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to ensuring that the house design utilise g the Mayo County Council Design Guidelines for Rural Housing and, would also be contrary to Section in 2.7 “Rural Housing Extensions” of Volume 2 Development Management Standards of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development would adversely impact on the nn character of a landscape, which it is necessary to preserve, in terms of design and visual prominence, and if permitted, would seriously injure the amenities, and depreciate the value, of property in the a vicinity. Pl o ay

Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Hawthorn Avenue, Hawthorn Lodge, Castlebar, Co Mayo, Mayo

Hawthorn Avenue, Hawthorn Lodge, Castlebar, Co Mayo

Mayo County Council · 2660687

What was proposed

The construction of a 2-storey private dwelling house, garage, associated on site wastewater treatment, boundary treatment, landscaping and all necessary site works and connections to public services.

Refusal reasons
  1. Based on the information submitted, it is considered that the proposed development, if granted, would contravene Rural Housing Objective RHO-1 of Volume 1 of the Mayo County Development Plan Au 2022-2028, would constitute haphazard development in a rural area and would militate against the preservation of the rural environment. The proposed development would therefore interfere with the character of the landscape which it is necessary to preserve and if permitted would be contrary to the g proper planning and sustainable development of the area. in nn
  2. The development at this location would contravene Objective RHO 5 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to ensuring that the house design utilise the Mayo County a Council Design Guidelines for Rural Housing. The proposed development would adversely impact on Pl the character of a landscape, which it is necessary to preserve, in terms of design and visual prominence, and if permitted, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development o of the area. ay M
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet