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

Downshill Woods, Willow Grove, Delgany, Co Wicklow, Wicklow

Downshill Woods, Willow Grove, Delgany, Co Wicklow

Wicklow County Council · 2660776

What was proposed

of extended and converted garage as single-storey detached house in the garden of the principal house

Refusal reasons
  1. The development proposed for retention is representative of a standalone detached dwelling which would represent a substandard and haphazard form of residential es development having regard to: os a) The size and layout of the proposed development for retention; rp b) Its reliance on a shared private wastewater treatment system serving another dwelling Pu and; c) Its reliance on shared private amenity space currently serving another dwelling; n io The development if permitted would therefore be contrary to CPO 6.4 of the County ct Development Plan which requires that “All new housing developments (including single and rural houses) shall achieve the highest quality of layout and design, in accordance with the pe standards set out in the Development and Design Standards (Appendix 1) and the Wicklow Single Rural House Design Guide (Appendix 2)” and contrary to CPO 13.17 which states that ns private wastewater treatment plants for multi-house developments will not be permitted. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health, set an -I undesirable precedent for similar type development in this area and would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development. il nc
  2. The proposed development is located within the Level 7 - TYPE 1 Village settlement of Kilpeddar, these settlements represent the more rural settlements in the County. It is an ou objective of the County Development Plan as set out under Objective CPO 6.37 that any new single house developments shall be for persons who are either a resident for at least 3 years C duration in County Wicklow or in permanent employment for at least 3 years duration in y County Wicklow, of within 30km of the Level 7 -Type 1 Village, in this case Kilpeddar, prior to nt making of application. Based on the details submitted the applicant does not come within the scope of this policy. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that this ou development will meet the needs of local as opposed to regional growth and therefore the development is contrary to the stated County Development Plan policy and to the Regional C Planning Guidelines and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ow kl ic W
Official decision evidence
Open official case Not linked yet