From the councils' decision notices

Why applications are refused, and the conditions permissions carry

Counted from the councils’ own decision notices: 19,019 of the 28,587 decisions made from 25 October 2025 to 25 October 2026 (67%), from the 24 councils whose notices we read. Findings, not verdicts — each figure is a share of the notices read, with how many that is.

Decision notices read: 19,019; of 28,587 decisions, last 12 months
Refusals read: 2,024; with at least one reason placed
Permissions read: 16,669; with at least one condition placed
Conditions on a permission: 7; the median permission read

Why applications are refused

Grounds cited in refusals

Share of 2,024 refusals whose decision notice we read

Contrary to development plan policy83%
Design, scale and visual impact41%
Undesirable precedent38%
Traffic safety, access and sightlines35%
Insufficient information27%
Neighbours' amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing)24%
Landscape, scenic views and routes22%
Rural housing policy and local need20%
On-site wastewater and public health18%
Density, layout and residential standards17%
Zoning and land use16%
Environmental effects (noise, emissions, EIA)16%

A notice counts once for each theme it cites, however often it cites it — the share of refusals refused at least partly on that ground. A notice can cite several, so the shares do not add up to 100%. The 12 most common of 20 are drawn; the table has them all.

Show the numbers

Theme	Notices	Share
Contrary to development plan policy	1,672	83%
Design, scale and visual impact	837	41%
Undesirable precedent	765	38%
Traffic safety, access and sightlines	706	35%
Insufficient information	549	27%
Neighbours' amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing)	481	24%
Landscape, scenic views and routes	436	22%
Rural housing policy and local need	405	20%
On-site wastewater and public health	367	18%
Density, layout and residential standards	334	17%
Zoning and land use	326	16%
Environmental effects (noise, emissions, EIA)	319	16%
Other	261	13%
Protected structures, ACAs and archaeology	260	13%
Ecology, Natura 2000 and appropriate assessment	259	13%
Flood risk	172	8%
Water supply and public sewer capacity	126	6%
Premature pending infrastructure or a plan	71	4%
Ribbon development	64	3%
Retail and town-centre policy	32	2%

The conditions permissions carry

Kinds of condition attached

Share of 16,669 permissions whose decision notice we read

Built as per the plans and particulars100%
Surface water and drainage (SuDS)82%
Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)73%
Materials, finishes and design changes66%
Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking65%
Restrictions on use or further development61%
Construction hours and management60%
Development contributions and security bonds55%
On-site wastewater treatment system41%
Landscaping, hedgerows, trees and boundaries35%
Waste management33%
Uisce Éireann water and sewer connections25%

A notice counts once for each theme it cites, however often it cites it — the share of permissions given at least one condition of that kind. A notice can cite several, so the shares do not add up to 100%. The 12 most common of 20 are drawn; the table has them all.

Show the numbers

Theme	Notices	Share
Built as per the plans and particulars	16,609	100%
Surface water and drainage (SuDS)	13,713	82%
Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)	12,237	73%
Materials, finishes and design changes	11,002	66%
Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking	10,864	65%
Restrictions on use or further development	10,118	61%
Construction hours and management	10,072	60%
Development contributions and security bonds	9,208	55%
On-site wastewater treatment system	6,877	41%
Landscaping, hedgerows, trees and boundaries	5,809	35%
Waste management	5,538	33%
Uisce Éireann water and sewer connections	4,094	25%
Occupancy and local-need conditions	3,738	22%
Other	3,555	21%
Ecology (bats, nesting birds, AA mitigation)	2,472	15%
Archaeology and built heritage	1,479	9%
Duration or temporary permission	1,275	8%
Energy, EV charging and climate	995	6%
Estate completion, lighting, naming and taking in charge	854	5%
Part V social housing	552	3%

By type of development

The grounds cited in refusals and the conditions attached, by type of development
Type	Notices read	Refusals: most cited	Permissions: most common conditions
Agricultural	1,20571% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy83% Traffic safety, access and sightlines56% Insufficient information55%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)97% Waste management83% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)72%
Alterations	1,55270% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy71% Undesirable precedent40% Design, scale and visual impact36%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)63% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)61% Materials, finishes and design changes58%
Apartments	34666% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy83% Design, scale and visual impact52% Density, layout and residential standards50%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)87% Construction hours and management86% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking85%
Change of use	1,06973% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy88% Undesirable precedent50% Zoning and land use48%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)78% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)68% Materials, finishes and design changes67%
Commercial	86369% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy87% Traffic safety, access and sightlines50% Design, scale and visual impact46%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)84% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)79% Construction hours and management75%
Demolition	9944% of decisions	11 read — too few	Construction hours and management78% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)76% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)76%
Energy	16071% of decisions	18 read — too few	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)83% Construction hours and management79% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)76%
Extension	4,23262% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy75% Design, scale and visual impact61% Undesirable precedent40%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)89% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)83% Construction hours and management78%
Housing estate	53267% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy83% Density, layout and residential standards47% Traffic safety, access and sightlines43%	Development contributions and security bonds93% Construction hours and management90% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking90%
Industrial	20865% of decisions	13 read — too few	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)88% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)87% Construction hours and management86%
Infrastructure	65867% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy69% Traffic safety, access and sightlines36% Design, scale and visual impact31%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)75% Construction hours and management74% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)72%
New dwelling	4,28966% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy86% Rural housing policy and local need45% Design, scale and visual impact42%	Development contributions and security bonds95% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)94% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking92%
Other	37667% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy59% Other44% Traffic safety, access and sightlines36%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)76% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)69% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking62%
Retention	3,37969% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy84% Undesirable precedent52% Design, scale and visual impact50%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)72% Restrictions on use or further development67% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)53%

Shares are of the refusals or permissions whose notice was read. The conditions column leaves out “built as per the plans and particulars”, which nearly every permission carries. A group with fewer than 30 notices read shows its count and no breakdown.

By council

Each council’s own notices, with the share of its decisions they cover. Listed alphabetically: a council’s figures describe what it was asked to decide, not how strict it is.

The grounds cited in refusals and the conditions attached, by council, listed alphabetically
Council	Notices read	Refusals: most cited	Permissions: most common conditions
Carlow	31697% of decisions	26 read — too few	Restrictions on use or further development98% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking95% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)93%
Cavan	55897% of decisions	23 read — too few	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)93% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking85% Materials, finishes and design changes78%
Clare	96296% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy79% Design, scale and visual impact53% Traffic safety, access and sightlines49%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)86% Materials, finishes and design changes75% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)71%
Cork City	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Cork County	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Donegal	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Dublin City	1,91085% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy73% Undesirable precedent49% Design, scale and visual impact40%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)94% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)93% Construction hours and management89%
Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Fingal	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Galway City	29698% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy79% Design, scale and visual impact52% Neighbours' amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing)50%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)82% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)72% Construction hours and management72%
Galway County	1,71598% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy95% Traffic safety, access and sightlines56% Undesirable precedent47%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)96% Restrictions on use or further development88% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)79%
Kerry	1,05596% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy86% Traffic safety, access and sightlines37% Design, scale and visual impact35%	Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking67% Materials, finishes and design changes64% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)63%
Kildare	1,04799% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy88% Design, scale and visual impact59% Undesirable precedent40%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)88% Restrictions on use or further development84% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)82%
Kilkenny	74499% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy60% Environmental effects (noise, emissions, EIA)42% On-site wastewater and public health35%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)83% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)83% Development contributions and security bonds78%
Laois	54496% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy86% Traffic safety, access and sightlines57% Undesirable precedent32%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)90% Materials, finishes and design changes87% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)87%
Leitrim	21599% of decisions	10 read — too few	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)91% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking80% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)79%
Limerick	1,23299% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy84% Design, scale and visual impact35% Neighbours' amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing)33%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)89% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking79% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)72%
Longford	268100% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy81% Insufficient information42% Traffic safety, access and sightlines37%	Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking82% Materials, finishes and design changes78% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)78%
Louth	77698% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy77% Undesirable precedent38% Insufficient information35%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)74% Construction hours and management68% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking67%
Mayo	1,09097% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy75% Landscape, scenic views and routes43% Undesirable precedent35%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)84% Development contributions and security bonds72% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)63%
Meath	1,27198% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy86% Undesirable precedent56% Design, scale and visual impact49%	Materials, finishes and design changes73% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)72% Restrictions on use or further development71%
Monaghan	47797% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy100% Traffic safety, access and sightlines44% Insufficient information41%	Development contributions and security bonds82% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)76% Materials, finishes and design changes74%
Offaly	44595% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy97% Rural housing policy and local need61% Design, scale and visual impact26%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)87% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)83% Construction hours and management80%
Roscommon	44498% of decisions	On-site wastewater and public health62% Contrary to development plan policy60% Environmental effects (noise, emissions, EIA)57%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)94% Construction hours and management82% Waste management80%
Sligo	40499% of decisions	28 read — too few	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)80% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking76% Development contributions and security bonds53%
South Dublin	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Tipperary	1,027100% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy79% Undesirable precedent43% Zoning and land use30%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)91% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)76% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking72%
Waterford	73399% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy73% Undesirable precedent40% Design, scale and visual impact37%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)77% Entrance, sightlines, roads and parking66% Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)57%
Westmeath	49098% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy85% Design, scale and visual impact61% Landscape, scenic views and routes38%	Surface water and drainage (SuDS)81% Materials, finishes and design changes75% Development contributions and security bonds72%
Wexford	Not read: its documents are not open to bulk reading. Each application's documents are linked from its page.
Wicklow	1,00096% of decisions	Contrary to development plan policy77% Design, scale and visual impact42% Undesirable precedent40%	Protecting neighbours (screening, glazing, noise, light)77% Restrictions on use or further development54% Surface water and drainage (SuDS)54%

About the figures

PPI’s reader reads each council’s decision notice, finds every refusal reason and condition in it word for word, and tags each with what it is about from a fixed list. A figure here counts notices: a refusal citing flood risk in two of its reasons counts once for flood risk. Reasons and conditions the reader could not find word for word are not counted.

The notices cover the 24 councils whose notices we read (24 of 31), decisions from 25 October 2025 to 25 October 2026. Cork City, Cork County, Donegal, Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, Fingal, South Dublin, Wexford are not read in bulk, so these figures are not national. A group with fewer than 30 notices read shows its count and no breakdown.

Which conditions and reasons a council uses depends on what it was asked to decide — one-off rural houses, apartments, extensions — as much as on the council. Compare like with like: see by type of development.

Source the councils' decision notices, read and counted by PPI; no notice text is reproduced hereAlways confirm a decision against the council’s own register.