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

Ballintemple, Dundrum, Co. Tipperary, Tipperary

Ballintemple, Dundrum, Co. Tipperary

Tipperary County Council · 2660482

What was proposed

to construct an extension to the side of our dwelling house including all associated site development works

Refusal reason

Policy 5- 8 (specialised residential accommodation), Policy 6- 3 (new healthcare) and Objective 6 -F of the Tipperary County Development Plan (TCDP) 2022- 2028 seeks to support the provision of specialised residential accommodation and both public and private healthcare facilities in settlements on suitably zoned lands where residents can readily connect with the services and amenities of the local community. This application seeks permission for an extension to the side of the existing property as an assisted living unit and the proposed use is considered akin to those referred to above. The application site is removed from a designated settlement (0.8km from Dundrum) and is on lands designated as ‘Open Countryside’. If permitted, the development would provide for a residential care /assisted living unit on unzoned and unserviced lands at a location which is removed from the services and amenities offered by settlement centres. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 5 -8, Policy 6- 3 and objective 6- F of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 -2028 and would not be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would, if permitted, set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match