GrantedDecided 14 November 2017Waterford City and County Council

Kilmacleague East, County Waterford

Planning application 17691
DecisionConditional grant
Decided14 November 2017
Application typeRETENTION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Waterford City and County Council.
Works to include an extension to the eastern side of the dwelling, elevation changes to front elevation, removal of existing porch and reconstruction of new porch, increasing the size of existing bedroom by extending into existing roof overhang, to widen existing wing walls and piers at entrance and to construct a new boundary wall to roadside boundary. Permission is also sought to indefinitely retain the enlarging of two windows, one in the southern and one in the western elevation. Along with necessary site development works to facilitate development

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 Kilmacleague East, County 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 →