RefusedDecided 16 March 2005Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

1, Monkstown Gate, Pakenham Road, Monkstown, Co. Dublin

Planning application D04A/0814
DecisionRefuse permission
Decided16 March 2005
Application typePermission
Source documentsPending

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council.
Provision of a new single storey

Application and appeal history

Structured appeal stages, outcomes and source documents currently tied to this application.
PL06D.211750Submitted 12 April 2005 / decided 15 August 2005
Status not recordedREFUSE PERMISSION
  1. Appeal submittedAppeal reference PL06D.211750
    12 April 2005
  2. Appeal decisionREFUSE PERMISSION
    15 August 2005
No appeal document has been bound to this case yet; the timeline will enrich as indexing continues.

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

Refusal reasons not machine-readable

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 1, Monkstown Gate, Pakenham Road, Monkstown, Co. Dublin?

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 →