RefusedDecided 07 June 2007South Dublin County Council

7, Woodford View, Clondalkin, Dublin 22

Planning application SD07B/0326
DecisionRefuse permission for retention
Decided07 June 2007
Application typeRetention
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by South Dublin County Council.
Retention sought for dormer in rear slope of existing roof (note dormer is partially visable above apex of roof in front elevation)

Application and appeal history

Structured appeal stages, outcomes and source documents currently tied to this application.
PL06S.224110Submitted 27 June 2007 / decided 26 October 2007
Appeal decidedRefuse Permission
  1. Appeal submittedAppeal reference PL06S.224110
    27 June 2007
  2. Appeal decisionRefuse Permission
    26 October 2007
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

Documents are indexed. Reason extraction for South Dublin has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near 7, Woodford View, Clondalkin, Dublin 22?

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.

1 council document — in the €39 site risk brief

Site brief

Nearby precedent

Similar nearby applications linked to this planning decision.
Get up to 80 detailed nearby comparables in a site risk brief →