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

No. 5 An Seanachai Holiday Homes, Pulla, Dungarvan, Co. Waterford, Waterford

No. 5 An Seanachai Holiday Homes, Pulla, Dungarvan, Co. Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2660673

What was proposed

to retain indefinitely the material change of use of the existing holiday home from short-term letting/holiday accommodation to permanent residential use

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development, by reason of the change of use of a unit permitted solely for short- term holiday letting to permanent residential accommodation, would materially contravene n Condition 9 of the parent planning permission (Ref. 04/528). The proposed change of use would io undermine the established holiday accommodation function of An Seanchai Holiday Cottages and ct would set an undesirable precedent for similar changes of use within the development, thereby pe undermining the terms and conditions of the original planning permission as granted. The proposed ns development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. -I
  2. Having regard to the design and layout of the existing dwelling and the limited provision of private y amenity space, which is exposed to overlooking from adjoining properties and the wider holiday rit cottage development, it is considered that the property would provide an inadequate standard of ho privacy and residential amenity for future permanent occupants. The proposed development would, therefore, result in a substandard level of residential amenity and would be contrary to the t Au proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ng ni an Pl C C C rd erfo at W
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet