GrantedDecided 10 August 2017Roscommon County Council

Barrymore Townland, Kiltoom, Athlone

Planning application 17224
DecisionConditional grant
Decided10 August 2017
Application typeRETENTION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Roscommon County Council.
The development consists of the following:- Retention of the following amendments to the as built dwelling consisting of:- (1) an additional door and window to the north east elevation, a double door and window to the south west elevation and two additional windows to the north west elevation; (2) the revised location of a door to the south west elevation; (3) changing of two windows on the north west elevation to doors; (4) additional roof lights to the north west elevation; (5) the changing of a flat roof section to the rear of the existing dwelling to a pitched roof; (6) the relocation of a section of the north east external wall and resulting additional floor area. Permission is also sought for a change of use of a section of the existing dwelling to change from dwelling space to an orthotic practice, and all ancillary site works at

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 Roscommon has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near Barrymore Townland, Kiltoom, Athlone?

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. €49 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 →