GrantedDecided 23 November 2021Dublin City Council

269, Griffith Avenue, Dublin 9, D09 V4H9

Planning application 3604/21
DecisionGrant retention permissio
Decided23 November 2021
Application typeRetention Permission
Source documentsPending

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Dublin City Council.
RETENTION: The development consists of a single storey building located in the rear of back garden, comprising of exercise/sun room with porch, mono pitched roof maximum height 2.9 metres, glazed bi-folding doors to front with timber cladding.

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

No refusal reason on record

Documents are indexed. Reason extraction for Dublin City is in progress.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near 269, Griffith Avenue, Dublin 9, D09 V4H9?

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. €39 incl. VAT, PDF by email.Searching the records is free. A one-off brief for this site is €39, and Pro at €19/month adds full document access and the planning AI for people tracking more than one site.

Source documents

Original council portal records and source PDFs where available.

Source link pending

This application was published at source, but the document inventory has not been bound yet.

Nearby precedent

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