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

Corlea, Keenagh, Co. Longford, Longford

Corlea, Keenagh, Co. Longford

Longford County Council · 2560118

What was proposed

the construction of a single-storey, two-bedroom, self-contained apartment along with all associated site works - including a driveway, footpath and landscaping - for use in conjunction with the existing residential dwelling on site. The significant further information consists of, revised proposals and clarifications confirming no sub-division of the site and that the development will remain part of a single integrated care use; clarification on staffing and service user numbers; a revised site layout plan showing all existing and proposed development and services; and confirmation that a wastewater treatment system assessment is currently being prepared by a suitable qualified engineer

Refusal reason

The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the existing wastewater treatment system and percolation area can adequately manage the disposal of wastewater from the existing/proposed dwelling. In the absence of this information in order to properly assess the impact on the local environment, to permit the said development could be prejudicial to public health due to risk of pollution and would not be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match