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
Themes overlap, so an application can appear under more than one theme.
How this is counted

Reporting window 3–9 Aug 2026. Official refusal reasons were analysed for 66 of 86 records in this weekly snapshot. Every figure is calculated offline from official refusal reason text retained in this snapshot.

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 development60
  • Development plan cited56
  • Undesirable precedent cited31

Every published reason statement fitted at least one of the ten substantive themes.

Refusals published 3–9 Aug 2026

2 of 2 matching records shown

Refused

BALLYBOE LISNENAN, LETTERKENNY, CO. DONEGAL, Donegal

BALLYBOE LISNENAN, LETTERKENNY, CO. DONEGAL

Donegal County Council · 2661006

What was proposed

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WAREHOUSE STORAGE BUILDING

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed development relates to an isolated parcel at the prominent northern end of the former Unifi lands and is not supported by an overall masterplan or coordinated framework demonstrating how its layout, access, active- travel infrastructure, servic ing and drainage would integrate with the future development of the wider landholding. The proposal would constitute piecemeal development, would prejudice the comprehensive and orderly regeneration of Opportunity Site 3 and would fail to provide the coordinated, high-quality layout required by Policy ED -P-9(k). It would therefore be contrary to the Opportunity Site Zoning Objective, Policies LK -OPP-3 and ED -P-9(k), and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed warehouse, by reason of its basic utilitarian design, siting, orientation and inadequate architectural, landscaping and boundary treatment, fails to provide an appropriate design response to this prominent gateway location or establish a coher ent frontage to the adjoining roads. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy ED - P-9(k) and (l) of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024– 2030 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The proposed standalone vehicular access onto the L- 1144 Lisnenan Road would be located excessively close to the existing roundabout and has not been designed as part of an integrated access strategy for the wider landholding. In the absence of a Transport Assessment, Road Safety Audit and coordinated proposals for the protected signalised junction and adjoining active- travel infrastructure, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed access would operate safely or would not prejudice the comprehensive development of the wider lands. The proposal would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would constitute disorderly and piecemeal development.
  4. The application has not been accompanied by the site- specific Flood Risk Assessment required under Policy LK -OPP-3. In the absence of this assessment and a coordinated surface-water drainage and attenuation strategy, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would avoid or satisfactorily address flood risk, would not increase flood risk elsewhere or would not prejudice the flood- management requirements of the wider Opportunity Site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy LK-OPP-3 and Policies F-P-1 and F-P-2 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match
Refused

CLONTYCRO, GLENCOLMCILLE, DONEGAL PO, Donegal

CLONTYCRO, GLENCOLMCILLE, DONEGAL PO

Donegal County Council · 2661018

What was proposed

CONSTRUCTION OF (1) NEW DWELLING HOUSE WITH PROPRIETARY SEWERAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM AND PERCOLATION AREA AND (2) DETACHED DOMESTIC GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

Refusal reasons
  1. The subject site is located in an area that is upland in nature and isolated from existing clusters of development. It is a policy of the Planning Authority (Policy RH -P-9, County Development Plan 2024-2030) that proposals for individual dwellings shall be subject to the application of Best Practice in relation to the siting, location and design of rural housing - which in turn requires that new buildings in the countryside respect the rural context and demonstrate an informed use of traditional reference. The dwelling proposed is 2 storey and o f a rectangular form with suburban design features that is inconsistent with the general character of the scenic area. It is located on an elevated site that is visually dominant in the local landscape. Accordingly, to permit the development as submitted would create an undesirable policy precedent for similar one-off developments that have the potential to be severely detrimental to preservation of scenic amenities in the rural area and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024 -2030 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. It is a policy of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 ‘To preserve the views and prospects of special amenity value and interest as identified on Map 11.1’ (Policy L- P-7 refers). The subject site falls within the vista from the viewing point from the south west and having regard to the elevated nature of the site and suburban design and scale of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that to permit the development as submitted would be visually detrimental to the protection of the scenic view and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024- 2030 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The subject site is accessed by an agricultural laneway that is of narrow width and steep gradient. The laneway that accesses the subject site is extremely restricted in width and runs north–south along a steeply sloping hillside. The lane crosses the Murl in River by means of a bridge. No details have been submitted with regard to the structural integrity of the bridge or if Section 50 consent has been received from the Office of Public Works. It is considered that the existing lane and bridge, in the absence of any structural details or proposals for improvements to same, lack s the necessary width and capacity to accommodate construction machinery and to provide for adequate passing space for existing and future vehicles. To permit the development as submitted would contravene Policy RH-P-9 (b) (iii) that requires that ‘ the site access/egress being configured in a manner that does not constitute a hazard to road users or significantly scar the landscape’, create an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the area and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match