Latest refusal decisions.

86Refusals
82Case links
66Lead matches
19Counties

What this means

Applications were most often refused because the proposal did not fit its site or surroundings, harmed the amenity of neighbouring homes, conflicted with zoning or rural-housing policy, lacked enough technical evidence to demonstrate its impacts were acceptable or created access or road-safety problems.

66 of 86 records carry official reason text

130 published statements, 2.0 per analysed application

35 refused on more than one ground, up to 6

Most common pairs

  1. 29 Design + Residential amenity
  2. 25 Design + Zoning/policy
  3. 22 Design + Missing evidence

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements
  1. 01 Design, scale, character or visual impact 50
  2. 02 Residential amenity, privacy, light or noise 34
  3. 03 Zoning, land use, settlement policy or rural housing need 32
  4. 04 Missing or insufficient evidence, surveys or technical detail 28
  5. 05 Traffic, access, parking or road safety 23
  6. 06 Unauthorised development, retention or procedural history 13
  7. 07 Wastewater, effluent, groundwater or public health 9
  8. 08 Ecology, habitats or Natura impacts 9
  9. 09 Surface-water drainage or flood risk 8
  10. 10 Built heritage or archaeology 6

Refusals published 3–9 Aug 2026

1 of 1 matching records shown

Refused

O'Brien Road, Co. Carlow, Carlow

O'Brien Road, Co. Carlow

Carlow County Council · 2560158

What was proposed

the construction of a portal frame industrial building, associated parking, internal access road, new splayed entrance from R441 and all associated site development works

Refusal reason

The proposed development, by reason of its reliance on a proposed priority junction rather than a roundabout, would result in an inadequate and substandard road access arrangement. Therefore, the proposed development would interfere with the safety and free-flowing nature of traffic on the adjoining road network and would result in an increased potential for traffic conflict and congestion. The proposed access arrangement would therefore be detrimental to road safety and the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence