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

Cornalaghta, Leckaun, Leitrim, Leitrim

Cornalaghta, Leckaun, Leitrim

Leitrim County Council · 2660130

What was proposed

1. Construction of a two story type domestic dwelling. 2. Construction of a domestic garage. 3. Construction of a new site entrance. 4. Construction of a wastewater treatment system to current EPA code of practice, and all ancillary works.

Refusal reasons
  1. The proposed access is located off the R278 Regional Road at a point where there is a continuous white centre line and where traffic operational speeds and volumes are high. The proposed access is located at a point onto the Regional Road where the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road are poor. The achievement of the required 160m sight distances in both directions from the proposed entrance have not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority on the basis of the submitted application documentation. The achievement of the required 160 metres of sight distance in both directions will require the removal of additional stone wall and hedgerow outside the applicants’ land ownership in addition to works that will significantly alter the appearance of landscape and topography along the full length of the boundary. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed access to the development is considered to constitute a serious and unacceptable traffic hazard onto a Regional Road which would result in traffic movements endangering the safety of other road users. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The proposed works to facilitate the access for the proposal will require an excessive extent of boundary removal and alteration which is considered contrary to policies TWH POL 5 and LCA POL 4 which seek to retain boundary treatments which form local character features such as the dry stone walls which define the boundary at this location. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The scale and mass of the dwelling and garage proposed on site as submitted are not in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Design Guide for the Siting and Design of Single Houses within the Leitrim Countryside and are therefore contrary to the RUR SET POL 6 and RUR SET POL 7 as set out in the Leitrim County Development Plan 2023-2029.
Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match