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

Carnagh East, Kiltoom, Co. Roscommon., Roscommon

Carnagh East, Kiltoom, Co. Roscommon.

Roscommon County Council · 2660235

What was proposed

Permission to construct a dwelling house and single dwelling treatment system with percolation area and all associated site works at

Refusal reason

The proposed development is located in Rural Policy Zone A – ‘Areas under Urban Influence’ as set out in Table 3.1: Rural Area Types in the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028. It is the policy of the County Development Plan to restrict housing in this area to applicants who are intrinsically part of the rural community or who have an occupation predominantly based in the rural community. The Planning Authority is not satisfied, based on the information submitted, that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with the criteria for rural generated housing in accordance with the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2005) and Table 3.2 of the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy Objective PPH 3.13 of the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028 which requires applicants to demonstrate a social or economic link (as per Table 3.2 of the Plan) to the rural area in which they propose to build. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match