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

Refusals published 3–9 Aug 2026

1 of 1 matching records shown

Refused

Derrynaloobinagh, Meeting House Lane, Ballybay Co. Monaghan, Monaghan

Derrynaloobinagh, Meeting House Lane, Ballybay Co. Monaghan

Monaghan County Council · 2660011

What was proposed

permission for the development which consists of the alteration, extension and refurbishment of existing single-storey storage units, the construction of a new single- storey yard store, the installation of new timber panel fence to the northwest boundary, upgrade surface finishes to the yard area and designated car parking spaces, the installation of a new silt tank, oil water separator tank & stormwater infiltration system together with all associated and ancillary site works. Significant further information received relates to submitted Site layout plan, Traffic Impact report and Flood Risk Assessment

Refusal reasons
  1. Having regard to the provisions of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, the Settlement Plan for Ballybay Town 2025-2031, and the land use objective (LUO 2) for the site on lands zoned as ‘Existing Residential’, which seeks to “protect and enhance existing residential amenity, to facilitate residential development on small infill sites within established residential areas, the comprehensive redevelopment of brownfield residential sites for sustainable residential development, and to facilitate and encourage the completion of commenced and not yet completed residential developments”, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to Objective LUO 2 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, would set an undesirable precedent for similar development, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  2. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) maps indicate the site of the proposed development is located within an area which is vulnerable to fluvial flooding (Flood Zone A and Flood Zone B) and there are concerns that the site is at risk of flooding. Policy FRMP 1 of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, states “applications for development, as required on previously developed lands within Flood Zones A or B, shall be subject to site specific flood risk assessment and shall provide details of structural and non-structural flood risk management measures, such as those relating to floor levels, internal layout, flood- resistant construction, flood-resilient construction, emergency response planning and access and egress during flood events”. In this regard, the applicant has not submitted a site-specific flood risk assessment and therefore has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development (i) Will not be at risk of flooding, (ii) Will not result in flood water (fluvial) displacement off-site or exacerbate flooding in the immediate vicinity or wider area; (iii) will not obstruct or impede important flow paths; and (iv) Will not result in residual risks to the area and/or development that cannot be managed to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information in relation to surface water drainage, having particular regard to hydraulic design of storm water runoff and an attenuation storage system. The proposal is therefore deemed to be unacceptable and would be contrary to the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposed development acceptably complies with the provisions of Policy ICDP 1 and Section 15.12.1 ‘Industrial and Commercial Developments within Tier 1-4 Settlements’ of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025- 2031, having particular regard to providing insufficient information to demonstrate the following criteria; • There is no adverse impact on the character or setting of the settlement or on the amenity of adjoining properties as a result of the use • There is no adverse impact on the adjoining uses in terms of emissions such as noise, light, odours. • A detailed quality landscape plan, planting schedule and planting programme is proposed and carried out which includes semi-mature indigenous trees to reduce the visual impact of the proposed buildings. The proposal is therefore deemed to be unacceptable and would be contrary to the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
  4. The proposed extension is intrinsically linked to an existing structure, the use of which is unauthorised. Accordingly, the proposed development, if granted, would facilitate the consolidation and intensification of an existing unauthorised development. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Planning Authority to consider granting permission for the proposed extension as it would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official decision evidence