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

3 of 3 matching records shown

Refused

De Bruin Court 3.2, Poleberry, Waterford, Waterford

De Bruin Court 3.2, Poleberry, Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2660348

What was proposed

Change of use of an existing dwelling house to short-term tourist letting accommodation.

Refusal reason

The proposed use of the subject property for short-term letting would result in the loss of suitable accommodation for both long-term rental and/or permanent owner/occupier accommodation at a time of an acute housing shortage. The proposed development would have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the area, would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals in the surrounding area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match
Refused

Corner of Saint Augustine Street & 17 Parnell Street, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, Waterford

Corner of Saint Augustine Street & 17 Parnell Street, Dungarvan, Co Waterford

Waterford City and County Council · 2660354

What was proposed

1) Demolition of an existing 3 storey commercial office building, 2) Construction of a new 3 storey commercial office building including solar panels to roof, 3) And all associated site development works

Refusal reason

Having regard to the prominent corner location of the site within Dungarvan’s Designated Architectural Conservation Area, it is considered that the demolition of the existing building in the absence of a sufficient justification for such demolition taken in conjunction with its proposed replacement, which by reason of its overall design, finishes and façade including its window positioning and proportions would detract from the historic streetscape, setting an undesirable precedent for similar proposals within the Architectural Conservation Area, contrary to Policy Objectives BH05 and BH11 of the Waterford City and County Development Plan 2022-2028, which seek to preserve the special character and streetscape of Architectural Conservation Areas. 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
Refused

Fairwinds, Killea Road, Dunmore East, Waterford

Fairwinds, Killea Road, Dunmore East

Waterford City and County Council · 2649

What was proposed

alterations and extensions to existing dwelling comprising of the following- partial demolition of the existing bungalow to facilitate a new living room and bedroom extension on the ground floor, a new roof with a first floor dormer extension containing 2 bedrooms, study room and bathroom, a new single storey granny flat side extension, modifications to existing window / Door fenestrations, modifications to wall surface finishes, additional carparking spaces and all associated site works

Refusal reason

Having regard to the design of the proposed extension, including the large amounts of glazing to the southeast elevation, the existing pattern of development in the area and the topography of the site, it is considered that the proposed first floor extension would negatively impact on the residential amenities of existing properties in the immediate vicinity of the site and would result in overlooking of the adjoining properties to the east, southeast and southwest. The proposed extension, due to the design, site location and site levels, would seriously injure the amenities of adjoining residential properties by reason of overlooking of the properties and their associated private amenity space andwould depreciate the value of same.It is therefore considered that the proposed development would seriously injure and detract from the residential amenities of adjoining properties, negatively impacting on same and would, thus, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Official decision evidence
Open official case Open PlanningBrief match