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

Carrickagarvan Td, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan, Monaghan

Carrickagarvan Td, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan

Monaghan County Council · 2560414

What was proposed

Retention Permission consisting of the following: 1) Cattle crush and holding pens 2) Roof structure over existing walled silage base and conversion of same into agricultural shed, Significant further information received relates to submitted Water Protection plan, Odour management plan and revised plans

Refusal reasons

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet
Refused

Killycard, Castleblayney, Co.Monaghan, Monaghan

Killycard, Castleblayney, Co.Monaghan

Monaghan County Council · 2560485

What was proposed

planning permission for development which will consist of the retention and completion of filling of lands with inert material/ soil and stone together with all ancillary and associated site works

Refusal reasons

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Open official case Not linked yet