GrantedDecided 02 December 2020Carlow County Council

Teagasc Oak Park, Crops Research Centre, Oak Park

Planning application 20357
DecisionConditional grant
Decided02 December 2020
Application typeEXTENSION OF DURATION
Source documents2

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Carlow County Council.
For 14/371 - the change of use of existing Coach House (a Protected Structure - Register No. 10300205) to office use, re-planning and redevelopment internally, changes to roof structure, doors and windows and extension to the rear consisting of tiered lecture theatre and new car park areas and all associated site works, all of the above to be completed within the grounds of the protected structures (Register No. 10300204, CW418, 10300206, 10300207, 10300208, 10300209, 10300214 & 10300215)

Application and appeal history

Structured appeal stages, outcomes and source documents currently tied to this application.

No indexed appeal history

No structured appeal case is tied to this application. This means no appeal is indexed, not that an appeal is impossible.

Decision details

Core application dates and identifiers from the public planning record.

Planning analysis

Refusal reasons and planning conditions extracted from the public decision file.

Refusal reasons

Low OCR quality: verify against source documents

No refusal reason on record

No refusal reason is on record for this application yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near Teagasc Oak Park, Crops Research Centre, Oak Park?

Get a site risk brief with the local decision pattern and up to 80 detailed nearby comparables (40 refusals and 40 grants), including extracted reasons and source links. €29 incl. VAT, PDF by email.

Source documents

Original council portal records and source PDFs where available.

Nearby precedent

Similar nearby applications linked to this planning decision.
Get up to 80 detailed nearby comparables in a site risk brief →