GrantedDecided 27 November 2025Limerick County Council

34 O'Connell Street & 57 Roches St, O'Connell / Roches St, Limerick City

Planning application 2560471
DecisionConditional grant
Decided27 November 2025
Application typePERMISSION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Limerick County Council.
(a) Proposed residential townhouse combining first, second, third floors of both properties to create a new 4-bedroom dwelling with access on the ground floor. This will involve a change of use from office use to residential for existing ground floor entrance and hallway, first, second and third floors at 34 O’Connell St, and second floor at 57 Roches St, Limerick City, (b) Elevational alterations to include for new sash windows to both existing elevations, (c) New roof access to replace existing roof access on flat roof at 34 O’Connell St., (d) Proposed new single WC to ground floor shop unit at 34 O’Connell St and associated site works, (e) All ancillary site works above and below ground. The application site contains a protected structure – NIAH Ref No 21517029

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 Limerick has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near 34 O'Connell Street & 57 Roches St, O'Connell / Roches St, Limerick City?

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 →