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

1 of 1 matching records shown

Refused

1 The Meadows, Newtown Manor, Kill, Kildare

1 The Meadows, Newtown Manor, Kill

Kildare County Council · 25124

What was proposed

for a proposed detached dormer bungalow plus widening of existing vehicular entrance for the purpose of creating a shared vehicular entrance and all associated site works. Revised by Significant Further Information which consists of redesign of the proposed dwelling from a detached dormer bungalow to a two storey 2 bedroom dwelling plus creating a new vehicular entrance instead of a shared vehicular entrance as proposed originally

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the restricted nature and prominent location of this site and the established pattern of development in the surrounding neighbourhood, it is considered that the proposed subdivision of the residential plot, the proposed layout and design of the structure would represent a poorly designed and inappropriate form of infill residential development and would be out of character with development in the vicinity and would therefore be contrary to Policy HO P6 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029, which seeks to promote and support residential consolidation and sustainable intensification and regeneration subject to the provision of good quality. Furthermore, the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities of the area and adjacent properties by way of overlooking and overshadowing, thereby contravening the zoning objective of the site which seeks to protect and improve existing residential amenity, to provide for appropriate infill residential development and to provide for new and improved ancillary services. The development would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments, which would in themselves and cumulatively be harmful to the residential amenities of the area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed site entrance is located an unacceptable distance from the adjoining road junction. By reason of its proximity to the junction, the proposed development would result in increased turning movements and vehicular conflict in an area where drivers are required to make manoeuvres and decisions associated with the junction and the proposed entrance would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match