GrantedDecided 31 October 2017Waterford City and County Council

Russellstown (Nr. Clonmel), Co. Waterford

Planning application 17660
DecisionConditional grant
Decided31 October 2017
Application typeRETENTION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Waterford City and County Council.
To retain indefinitely the works as constructed on the footprint of the original dwelling, which was demolished and for permission to complete a proposed two storey dwelling. This is an alteration to previously approved Permission PD10/115. The alteration includes demolition of original house and construction of replacement on original footprint, changing the principal extension from dormer type to two storey, omission of the back porch and changing the previously indicated garage to a store/utility room together with changes to the elevations

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 Waterford has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near Russellstown (Nr. Clonmel), Co. Waterford?

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 →