RefusedDecided 12 February 2024Waterford City and County Council

No.69 Dominick Place, Airmount, Waterford.

Planning application 2360617
DecisionRefused
Decided12 February 2024
Application typePERMISSION
Source documents1

Site

What is on file

0refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Waterford City and County Council.
The sub-division of an existing single storey semi-detached three bedroom house into 2No. residential units (1No. two bed & 1No. one bed). The application includes the indefinite permission for retention of an existing single storey flat roof extension to the side of the existing house. This application also involves the demolition of the existing single storey rear extension & the construction of a single storey extension to the front of the existing house & all associated site works

Application and appeal history

Structured appeal stages, outcomes and source documents currently tied to this application.
ABP-319243-24Submitted 11 March 2024 / decided 21 August 2024
Status not recordedREFUSED
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 Waterford has not started yet.

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near No.69 Dominick Place, Airmount, 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 →