RefusedDecided 20 December 2019Meath County Council

Masspool, The Ward, Ashbourne Co. Meath

Planning application AA191439
DecisionRefused
Decided20 December 2019
Application typeRETENTION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Meath County Council.
Retention permission for; A 265.47sq.m existing warehouse (5.3m high x 23.77m long x 11.47m wide). Ancillary storage containers consisting 3 no. (2.59m high x 12.19m long x 2.44m wide) storage containers 3 no. (2.59m high x 6.06m long x 2.44m wide) storage containers 1 no. (2.59m high x 8.97m long x 3.09m wide) storage containers 1 no. (2.59m high x 8.3m long x 2.1m wide) storage containers 1 no. (2.4m high x 2.43m long x 1.01m wide) store. Upgrade works to an existing entrance Boundary wall treatment (2m high). And all associated site development works

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

Refusal reasons not machine-readable

Documents are indexed. Reason extraction for Meath has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near Masspool, The Ward, Ashbourne Co. Meath?

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 →