GrantedDecided 09 June 2025South Dublin County Council

19 Woodstown Place, Dublin 16, D16 H426

Planning application SD25B/0234W
DecisionGrant permission
Decided09 June 2025
Application typePermission
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by South Dublin County Council.
The development seeking permission will consist of the construction of a dormer window in the main roof to the rear of the house, and two rooflights in the main roof to the front of the house as well as changing the existing main roof hip to a gable with (with window) along with all associated site 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

No refusal reason on record

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 19 Woodstown Place, Dublin 16, D16 H426?

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 →