GrantedDecided 29 June 2021Sligo County Council

32 O'Connell Street, Sligo

Planning application 20406
DecisionConditional grant
Decided29 June 2021
Application typePERMISSION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Sligo County Council.
Development consisting of (1) retain additional floor area of 102m2 to rear and side of existing restaurant consisting of food preparation and storage area (b) change of use of ground floor retail unit to extension of existing restaurant including alteration to existing entrance and internal modifications with provision of sanitary accomodation (c) new entrance to front elevation of existing retail unit to access proposed new stairs to existing first floor office spaces (d) erection of signage to front elevation of existing retail unit, together with all ancillary site works and services

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 Sligo has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near 32 O'Connell Street, Sligo?

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 →