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

Listellick North, Tralee, Co. Kerry, Kerry

Listellick North, Tralee, Co. Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2685

What was proposed

retain a log cabin to the rear of the existing dwelling house for 12 months temporary use as a hair dressing salon following which the structure will be used as a garden room for the ancillary use of the dwelling house

Refusal reasons
  1. It is considered that the proposed retention of the structure for temporary use as a hair dressing salon would materially contravene Section 1.8 of Volume 6 of Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 with regard to Home-based Economic Activity, setting a precedent for similar unwelcome economic activity in a rural area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. It is considered that the proposed retention of the structure for temporary use as a hair dressing salon would be injurious to the residential amenity of the area, setting a precedent for similar unwelcome development in a rural area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match
Refused

Dirtane, Ballyheigue, Co.Kerry, Kerry

Dirtane, Ballyheigue, Co.Kerry

Kerry County Council · 2660445

What was proposed

to build a private single storey dwelling with connection to the main sewer

Refusal reasons
  1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that a rural housing need has been demonstrated in accordance with Objective KCDP 5 -15, Rural Housing Policy of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028, having regard to the location of the application site in an area designated as a Rural Area Under Urban Influence. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed development would contravene Objectives KCDP 11 -77, KCDP 11 -78 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 which seek to protect the landscapes of the County by ensuring that any new developments do not detrimentally impact on the character, integrity, distinctiveness or scenic value of their area or materially detract from views designated in the Development Plan. It is considered that the proposed development would seriously interfere with the character of the landscape as a consequence of the scale, prominent siting and design of the proposed dwelling house and having regard to the excessive density of residential development in the vicinity. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match