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

29 Design + Residential amenity
25 Design + Zoning/policy
22 Design + Missing evidence

All ten refusal themes

Applications · statements

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

0 of 0 matching records shown