The old Act and the new Act side by side, for applications, outline permission, altering a permission, duration, appeals, exemptions, environmental assessment, judicial review and enforcement. Read from the Act text, not from summaries, with the section cited on every line.
The 2024 Act is being commenced in blocks. The plan-making and judicial review parts are already in force. The part that most people meet, Part 4 on planning applications, has not yet commenced. It was due on 13 October 2026; the Department deferred it on 9 October 2026, with a new date to be notified. Commencement now looks likely in November 2026, but no date has been confirmed. It brings the alteration procedure, the four-unit limit on outline permission, mandatory timelines for An Coimisiún Pleanála, a reversal of the compliance default, and a narrower material contravention route with it. On our reading, an application lodged before Part 4 commences is a 2000 Act application and stays one through to appeal.
Commencement orders S.I. 662/2024, 239, 256, 379, 452 and 633 of 2025, and 194/2026. The 2026 Amendment Act was commenced in part by S.I. 414/2026, which is what moved judicial review of 2000 Act procedures across.
Block C has been deferred again. It was due on 30 September, then on Tuesday 13 October 2026. The Department had indicated Tuesday 13 October 2026. On 9 October 2026 the Department announced that commencement is deferred due to circumstances beyond its control, that a new date will be notified as soon as practicable with sufficient advance notice, and that in the meantime the 2000 Act continues to operate as normal. The commencement order will fix the date. The commencement order has not yet been made, so there is no S.I. number to cite, and it will be added here when there is; the Department's commencement schedule remains the running record. Until the order takes effect, applications, appeals, permissions, consents and approvals continue under the 2000 Act, so an application lodged before Part 4 commences is a 2000 Act application and is decided and appealed as one. Seven regulations under the 2024 Act were published in draft on 18 September 2026 and are not yet made; the exempted development regulations have not been published.
The Act repeals the 2000 Act but carries most of what was done under it across. On our reading, these rules govern any file already in the system.
| Situation | What happens | Section |
|---|---|---|
| An application lodged before commencement | Continues under the 2000 Act to its decision, including any appeal, as if the repeal had not happened. The same applies to a s.42 extension request, a s.44 or s.46 notice, and an appeal under s.37 already lodged. | s.626 |
| A permission granted under the 2000 Act | Deemed to be a permission under the 2024 Act. A s.34 grant becomes a s.98 permission; a Board grant on appeal becomes a s.109 permission; SID, substitute consent and the local and State authority approvals become Chapter 4 permissions. So the new alteration and extension procedures would apply to it. | s.188 |
| An outline permission under s.36 | Deemed an outline permission under s.96, whatever its size. The four-unit cap in s.96(1) does not apply to it. | s.96(10) |
| Development that was exempt under the 2000 Act | Stays exempt. A s.5 declaration already given continues to have effect, and a s.5 request already made is finished under the 2000 Act. | s.9(8), s.12 |
| Extending an existing permission under s.42 | s.42 of the 2000 Act survives for three years from the passing of the 2024 Act, so until October 2027, alongside the new route in Chapter 5 of Part 4. | s.140(14) |
| A development plan or local area plan | Continues in force and is the plan against which decisions are made. A plan or variation already being made under the 2000 Act finishes under the 2000 Act. Section 28 guidelines continue until replaced by a National Planning Statement. | ss.68, 69, 81, 2025 Act |
Change is marked substantive, procedural or carried over.
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before lodging | |||
| Pre-application consultation | Already mandatory, and has been since 22 October 2018. s.247(1A), inserted by s.43(b) of the 2018 Amendment Act, requires consultation comprising at least one meeting before an application for residential development of more than 10 housing units, non-residential development of more than 1,000 m² gross floor space, or student accommodation of 200 or more bed spaces. The meeting, or a written confirmation that none is needed, must be held within 4 weeks, and the applicant is entitled to one extension of that period on request. Miss the 4 weeks and the applicant may lodge anyway. Separately, LRD has its own s.32B meeting and s.32D opinion. | procedural The same requirement, restated, with the thresholds changed from "more than" to "not less than", so exactly 10 units or exactly 1,000 m² is now caught. Three other changes: the authority's gatekeeping goes (s.247(1) requires an interest in the land and the authority's agreement; s.90(1)(a) is open to any eligible intending applicant); its power to hold consultations only at set times and places goes (s.247(4) has no successor); and the applicant's right to extend the 4 weeks goes. The duty to indicate relevant plan objectives widens from the development plan to any area plan. s.89, s.90, ss.91 to 92; 2026 Act ss.37, 38 |
The obligation itself dates from 2018, so a ten-house scheme has required a consultation for eight years. What changes on commencement is narrower: the threshold catches exactly 10 units and exactly 1,000 m², and the 4 weeks becomes fixed because the applicant can no longer ask for more time. An application that skips a mandatory consultation would be invalid, and the Act requires the Commission to declare it so if it reaches appeal (s.103(4)(b)). If the authority does not hold the meeting in time, a non-LRD applicant may go ahead and lodge (s.90(4)). For an LRD it must instead convene as soon as practicable and explain the delay in writing. A s.247(7) written confirmation carries over as a s.90(9) certificate. Note also that, under the Act, nothing said in a consultation can be relied on, by either side, in the formal process or in court: s.247(3) now, s.167 once Part 4 commences. |
| Elements not yet confirmed | Already available for any application, since 16 December 2023. ss.32H to 32L, inserted by the 2022 Act and commenced by S.I. 645 of 2023, let any person intending to apply under s.34 request a meeting where details will not be confirmed in time. Same 4 weeks to the meeting and 4 weeks to the opinion. The justification may expressly include technology likely to become available after the application, and the applicant undertakes to provide two or more options, or parameters, or a combination of both. | carried over The same route, slightly tightened: the undertaking is two or more approaches, or a statement of the range, with no express combination limb, and the file publishes within 3 days of the application rather than when it is made. The opinion itself stays unpublished until the application is made. A Chapter 4 equivalent is added at ss.118 and 119. ss.93, 94, s.98(2), ss.118, 119 |
The route addresses a specification, such as a turbine, panel, battery or plant model, that will not be fixed until procurement, and it is available now on a 2000 Act application. What the new Act adds is at decision stage: s.98(2) and s.123(2) expressly authorise the conditions that hold the applicant to the stated options or range and require the particulars before commencement, and Schedule 5 Part 1 paragraphs 37 and 38 place both outside any compensation claim. On a 2000 Act application the same result would rest on the general condition power in s.34(4). An LRD meeting request can double as a flexibility request: s.32B(6) now, s.91(2) after. |
| The application and the decision | |||
| The application | s.34, with eligibility and procedure spread across several sections and the regulations. | procedural One "standard development" procedure under s.95, with eligibility consolidated in s.85 and the ways an applicant's eligibility can be challenged restricted. s.85, s.95 |
Owner, holder of a legal or beneficial interest, or a person with the owner's written consent. Only an "interested person" may question the applicant's eligibility, and that means the authority, the Commission, the owner or a holder of a legal or beneficial interest. On our reading, an objector cannot raise it in a submission or in court (s.85(3), (4)). Under the 2000 Act insufficient legal interest was a standard objection ground. That ground now appears to be closed. The documents, notices and fees come from the regulations, which are not yet made. |
| The applicant's track record | Two provisions already existed. s.34(3)(c) required, for residential development of 10 or more houses, regard to information on the applicant's implementation of housing development in the previous 5 years and an assessment of the likelihood of implementation. s.34(2)(a)(va) and (vb) made previous developments not satisfactorily completed, and previous convictions under the Planning Acts, the Building Control Act 2007 or the Fire Services Act 1981, mandatory considerations. s.35 allowed refusal for past failures to comply, with an appeal to the Board. | substantive The 10-unit track record test is carried over at s.86(3)(f) and widened: it now extends to any person connected with the applicant, and counts information whether or not provided by the applicant. The bigger change is s.173, the successor to s.35: permission shall be refused where the authority forms the opinion that there is a real and substantial risk the development would not be completed, because of substantial non-compliance with a previous permission or condition, a substantial unauthorised development, or a conviction under this Act or the Act of 2000. Notice and an opportunity to make submissions must be given first. s.173, s.86(3)(f) |
Only failures of a substantial nature count. But the Act provides no appeal to the Commission against a refusal under s.173, where s.35 of the 2000 Act allowed one. The remedy it provides is a motion on notice to the High Court within 8 weeks. The section reaches partnerships, related companies, companies the applicant controls, and companies of which the applicant is a shadow director, so a clean corporate vehicle is unlikely by itself to answer it. |
| Housing growth targets | Nothing express. Authorities refused on the basis that a settlement's allocation in the core strategy was already committed. | substantive An authority shall not refuse for the reason only that the settlement's housing growth target has been reached, and may grant even where the grant would exceed it, if the development is consistent with the settlement objectives in the development plan and any area plan and the authority considers the permissions already granted do not undermine the target's purpose. s.86(6), (7), (8) |
On our reading, "the allocation is used up" is no longer a reason to refuse on its own. Nor is the absence of an urban area plan, priority area plan or coordinated area plan, unless the development plan itself says so. Both are likely to matter most in small settlements and for rural schemes. |
| Submissions, and the earliest date a decision can issue | Neither is in the Act. Two separate articles of the 2001 Regulations, which currently coincide at 5 weeks and so get spoken of as one thing. Article 29: a submission may be made within 5 weeks of receipt, on payment of the fee. Article 30: the authority shall not decide before that period expires. The 8 week deadline to decide is in the Act at s.34(8). | watch this Not in the Act. s.97(1) provides that any person may make a submission on payment of the prescribed fee, "in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed", and names no number. s.101 sets only the outer limit, 8 weeks, and contains no minimum wait at all. Both the submission window and any bar on deciding early therefore come from regulations not yet made. s.97(1), s.101 |
Five weeks should continue to apply until new regulations replace the 2001 Regulations. On our reading, those Regulations do not fall away on commencement: s.627 carries every instrument made under the 2000 Act forward as if made under the corresponding provision of the 2024 Act, and they can then be amended article by article. So articles 29 and 30 should survive, and a change to either is likely to come by a short amending instrument, not on commencement of Part 4. We would not expect it to change on the day the rest of the Act arrives. Authorities are being briefed that the earliest decision date moves to 6 weeks while the 8 week deadline stays. If that happens, the authority's working window between the close of the objection period and its own deadline would narrow from three weeks to two. More further information requests are likely, since a request resets the clock, and heavier use of the s.101 consent-to-extend machinery can be expected. Watch also which article moves. If only the earliest decision date changes and the submission period does not, the date by which an objector must lodge would be unchanged, and treating the two as one number could lead to a missed deadline. We list the instruments as they are signed on our circulars page. |
| Decision period | 8 weeks from receipt; 4 weeks from a further information response. An authority that misses the period must decide and must refund the fee, and a deemed grant arises only if it is silent 12 weeks after that, with submitters given 4 weeks to appeal it. None of this applies where EIA, EIA screening or appropriate assessment is required (s.34(8)(f), inserted 2010). The original automatic deemed grant on day 57 has not existed since then. | substantive 8 weeks, or 12 where appropriate assessment or EIA applies; 4 weeks (8 for AA/EIA) after further information. If the authority is going to miss it, it must write, say why, and ask the applicant's consent to at most 4 more weeks. Refuse consent and the application is deemed refused with all fees repaid, and the deemed refusal can be appealed. Consent and the authority misses again: fees repaid plus a payment of three times the fee, capped at €10,000. The Act provides that a late decision is not invalid. s.101 |
What remained of the deemed grant after 2010, the 12 week backstop for non-EIA cases, appears to go entirely. The lever now is the consent request: an applicant who does not answer within the prescribed period is deemed to have consented, so the reply matters. Annual reports must publish the counts and the sums paid out. |
| Material contravention | s.34(6): the authority may grant in material contravention where the members, by three-quarters resolution after public notice, so resolve. | substantive The default is refusal (s.99(1)). A material contravention resolution needs a chief executive's proposal, three-quarters of all members, public notice with a fee for submissions, a chief executive's report, and the development must be consistent with the NPF, National Planning Policies and Measures or the regional strategy on the point contravened. Copies go to the regional assembly and the OPR. s.99, s.110 for the Commission |
Narrower on two counts: the executive has to start it, and the contravention has to sit inside national or regional policy. A zoning objective that national policy supports is unlikely to be got around this way. |
| Conditions | s.34(4) listed the conditions that may be attached; points of detail agreed by compliance submissions with no statutory clock. | procedural One list in s.87 for grants, alterations and extensions alike. New: a condition may require a facility or service giving "a substantial gain to the community", capped so that it must not require so much financial resource as would substantially deprive the developer of the benefit of the permission. s.87(3), (5), (6) |
Same substance in the main, one place to look. s.87(6) appears to be the test to cite against a community gain condition that is out of proportion to the scheme. |
| Compliance and points of detail | s.34(5) already sets an 8 week period from submission of the points of detail, or longer if agreed in writing. Crucially, where none of the specified events occurs within that period, "that authority shall be deemed to have agreed to the points of detail as so submitted". | substantive The same 8 weeks, and the same referral machinery, but the default is reversed. If no agreement is reached and no referral is made in time, the authority is deemed NOT to have agreed. Where the matter goes to the Commission, it has 8 weeks, and if it has not determined it within a further 4, the points of detail are deemed agreed. s.87(9) to (13) |
In our view this is one of the least remarked and most adverse changes in the Act. Under the 2000 Act an authority that did nothing was deemed to have agreed the developer's compliance submission. On our reading of the 2024 Act the same inaction defeats it, and the developer would need to refer to the Commission within 4 weeks or lose the point. Silence by the authority would then defeat the developer; silence by the Commission would favour him. Establish which Act the permission was granted under before relying on either default, and diary both periods from the day the submission goes in. |
| Retention and retrospective consent | Retention under s.34(12), barred where EIA or AA would have applied; substitute consent for those cases under Part XA. | substantive Retention continues for standard development. For development that needed EIA or AA, retrospective consent from the Commission replaces substitute consent, and cannot be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist, judged against a statutory list in s.135. The Commission may direct the development to cease pending the decision, and may direct remedial works on a refusal. ss.129 to 135; 2026 Act s.60 |
The two doors now appear to be closed against each other, so choose correctly before anything is lodged. A retention application must be declared invalid where AA cannot be excluded or EIA is required (s.95(8)), and invalid on appeal if the Commission so finds (s.103(6)). Going the other way, the Commission shall not consider an application for retrospective consent for land-based development where neither AA nor EIA is required (new s.129(9)). Refusal of retrospective consent makes the development unauthorised and the authority must serve an enforcement notice, and no further application can be made on the land until any remedial direction is complied with (ss.134(3), (5)). |
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who can use it | s.36: any development, subject to the regulations, which excluded retention, EIA cases and protected structures. | substantive Not more than 4 housing units, and not a protected structure. Not available where AA or EIA is required. s.96(1), (7) |
Outline for a commercial building, a five-house scheme or anything larger no longer appears to be available. The outline-then-full route looks set to serve the one-off house and the small infill site only. |
| Life of the outline | 3 years, extendable to 5 by the authority. | carried over 3 years, or up to 5 if specified. Ceases to have effect thereafter. s.96(3) |
Unchanged. |
| Duration of the full permission | Ran from the grant of the full permission. | substantive Deemed to have commenced on the date of the outline grant. s.96(6) |
On our reading, the clock starts at outline. A full permission granted three years into a five-year outline would have two years left, not five. Ask for a longer duration at the full stage under s.177 if the build will take time. |
| What the full application can be refused on | Not on any ground decided at outline, provided the proposal does not contravene the outline. | carried over Same rule, and extended to the Commission on appeal. s.96(4), (5) |
Unchanged. |
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default duration | s.40: 5 years by default. s.41, as substituted in 2018, already allows the authority or the Board to specify a period of not less than 2 years and, for residential development, not more than 10 years, having regard to the nature and extent of the development. For 10 or more houses, s.41(2) lets the authority weigh the applicant's delivery record over the previous 5 years and the likelihood of implementation. | procedural 5 years by default. The 2 to 10 year range is carried over and widened: it now applies to all development, not only residential, and more than 10 years is available for Chapter 4 development. What is new is that the applicant may request a duration in the application, and the public notice must then specify the duration sought. s.177 |
The range is not new; the right to ask for it up front is. The duration needed should be decided before lodging, because it goes in the notice. Two years for a short-lived use, ten for a phased scheme, and beyond ten for strategic infrastructure. |
| Phasing plans | None required. Phasing was a matter for condition, if it arose at all. | substantive An application for residential development of not fewer than 10 housing units must specify the duration sought and be accompanied by a phasing plan, setting out the sequencing, the schedule of works and the periods within which specified phases must be completed. The authority may condition compliance with it, and any such condition must allow the sequence or periods to be amended with the authority's prior written agreement. s.178 |
A new mandatory document at ten units, and the natural companion to the duration request under s.177. Read it with s.86(3)(f), under which the authority must also consider whether the applicant is likely to finish within the permission. The phasing plan is likely to be where that case is made. Build in the amendment mechanism at s.178(4) rather than committing to dates that may not survive the first winter. |
| Extension of duration | s.42: substantial works carried out, development to be completed in a reasonable time; or, where not commenced, the narrow environmental route. The 2025 Act added a temporary route for uncommenced housing permissions with under two years left, s.42(1A), giving up to three years. The application window ran from 1 August 2025 and closed on 1 February 2026, so it is no longer available. Anyone who used it has a hard deadline: under s.42(9) the extension ceases to have effect if the development is not commenced by 1 February 2027. A further extension after a s.42(1A) one is possible under s.42(4A), but s.42(7A) applies the ordinary commenced and substantial works test to it, and s.42(4C) caps the aggregate at five years. Since 20 July 2026 a s.42 application may be made up to two years before expiry, not one (art. 41 of the 2001 Regulations as amended by S.I. 330 of 2026; Circular PLR 03/2026). | substantive A request under Chapter 5, only before expiry and only where development has commenced. Once only. As amended by the 2026 Act: original duration plus extension may not exceed twice the original, and where a permission was already extended under s.42 of the 2000 Act, that extension counts against the same cap. No longer than the authority thinks necessary to finish. s.140(1)(b), s.141(2), (2A); 2026 Act s.63 |
On our reading, a five-year permission can become ten at most, and only if work has started. A permission already extended by five years under s.42 appears to have used its allowance and could not be extended again under Chapter 5. s.42 remains available until 17 October 2027 (s.140(14)) with its own tests, and the application window now opens two years before expiry, so check both routes well before an expiry. A permission expiring in 2028 can be the subject of a s.42 application from 2026. |
| Judicial review and the clock | No pause. A permission under challenge kept running down. | substantive Duration is suspended while judicial review is ongoing. In force since 1 August 2025 and extended by s.16 of the 2025 Act to permissions and approvals under the 2000 Act and to s.9 strategic housing development permissions, including retrospectively, to reviews brought before that date and already concluded, where the holder declares the development did not substantially commence during the proceedings. s.180 |
If a permission was ever under review, the time may be recoverable, and the review does not have to have been recent. But on our reading s.180 preserves a live permission and does not revive a lapsed one, so a permission that has already expired appears to be outside it. The notice must be given while duration remains to protect. The notice goes to the planning authority, and where the review has concluded it must carry a declaration that the development did not substantially commence; works for maintenance, security or protection of the site do not count as commencement. Note the trade on the forward-looking limb: while the clock is stopped the permission does not have effect, so no development may be carried out during the suspension. |
| Apartment standards modification | s.44B, inserted by s.29 of the 2025 Act: a certificate that a modification to bring an uncommenced residential permission into line with the 2025 apartment design standards is a "permitted modification". No fresh application, no third party stage, no appeal to the Commission, 8 weeks. It has never been commenced. | carried over Sits in the 2000 Act and is not repeated in the 2024 Act. It is time-limited by its own terms. |
We would not plan around it. s.44B(6)(a) requires the application before two years from the passing of the 2025 Act, which was 23 July 2025, so on our reading the window closes on 23 July 2027 whether or not the section is ever brought into operation. The Department's commencement of the 2025 Act on 1 August 2025 covered ss.16 and 28 and was silent on s.29. Even if commenced, it reaches only uncommenced development where neither AA nor EIA arises. For anything else, the Chapter 5 alteration route below, or s.138A once Part 4 is in force. |
This is likely to be the change practitioners use most often. The 2000 Act had no general way to alter a permission short of a fresh application.
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| The route | None for ordinary permissions. A change meant a new s.34 application with notices, an 8-week decision, contributions and a third-party appeal, or a compliance agreement stretched as far as the authority would allow. s.146B alteration applied only to strategic infrastructure. | substantive A request to the deciding authority to alter the terms of a permission. Optional pre-request consultation with a fee. Available to the owner, a person with a legal or beneficial interest, or a person with the owner's consent. Not for outline permissions. s.138, s.139, s.140 |
"Deciding authority" is the planning authority for its own permissions and for Board or Commission decisions on appeal; the Commission for permissions it granted at first instance. A 2000 Act permission appears to qualify (s.188). |
| The precondition | n/a | substantive Any part of the development already carried out must be in compliance with the permission. s.140(1)(a) |
Build first and ask afterwards, and the request may be refused at the door. On our reading, the compliance record of the whole development counts, not only the part being changed. |
| Non-material alteration | n/a | substantive Where the alteration is not material, the authority shall alter the permission as requested. No public notice, no conditions, no appeal. The Act provides that three things cannot be material: correcting a clerical error; an alteration to facilitate doing something the permission's terms contemplated but did not expressly provide for; and a clarification. s.142, s.138(2) |
The middle limb is likely to be the working tool: internal layout, a mezzanine in a permitted warehouse, a plant enclosure the drawings implied. Frame the request around what the permission already contemplated. The authority decides materiality "as soon as practicable" and may invite submissions first. |
| Material alteration | n/a | substantive Material if it needs AA or EIA, comes with an EIAR or NIS, or the authority decides it is otherwise material. Then: public notice, any person may make a submission, further information and revised drawings possible, decision within 8 weeks of the materiality notice (4 after further information, 12 with AA or EIA), with or without s.87 conditions. Appeal to the Commission confined to the alteration. s.143, s.144, s.146 |
Narrower and faster than a fresh application: a confined appeal, an 8-week clock with deemed refusal and fee consequences if missed. A change of use, or a material contravention, is not a shortcut; s.148 puts a contravening alteration through the same procedure as an application. |
| Uncommenced apartment permissions: the two-year window | s.44B (2025 Act): a certificate that a modification for the 2025 apartment standards is a "permitted modification", until July 2027. Otherwise a fresh application. | substantive New s.138A, inserted by the 2026 Act. For a residential permission granted before commencement, not yet commenced, and requested within 2 years of commencement, the following are deemed not material: more apartments or a changed mix within the same building envelope; floor areas down to stated minimums (studio 32 m², 1-bed 45, 2-bed 63 or 73, 3-bed 76 or 90); dual-aspect reduced to not less than 25% of units; ground-floor ceiling height not below 2.7 m; changes to lifts and stairs; and ancillary works. Not for student accommodation, not more occupants than before, and SDZ unit caps continue to apply. 2026 Act s.62, inserting s.138A |
Because these are non-material, s.142 applies: the authority must alter the permission as requested, with no public notice and no third party appeal. In effect this is the statutory version of the 2025 apartment standards, and it appears broader than the s.44B certificate. Site works to secure or maintain the land do not count as commencement (s.138A(6)). The clock starts on the day Part 4 commences. One qualification that has to be given with the advice. On our reading, the non-material label removes the domestic procedure. It does not remove the Directives. By s.195 a s.140 request is an "application for permission" for the purposes of Part 6; s.212(2) requires appropriate assessment screening of any alteration; and ss.211 and 226 prohibit the alteration being made unless the assessment requirements are satisfied. So a s.138A alteration would have to be screened, and could not be made if AA or EIA is required and has not been carried out. It is likely to bite rarely, because these changes sit inside an already consented envelope, but it could where the site is hydrologically connected to a European site and the extra units change wastewater loading, or where the original permission rested on an EIA that assumed a stated number of units. Screen before promising a client the fast route. |
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to appeal | 4 weeks from the decision (s.37). | carried over 4 weeks from the decision. Late is invalid. s.102(5) |
Unchanged. |
| Who can appeal | The applicant; anyone who made a submission; prescribed bodies not notified; an adjoining owner with leave; and, where EIA or AA applied, an environmental body meeting the s.37(4)(d) tests. | procedural The same list, with the environmental body test tightened: a company formed at least a year before, with objects relating to environmental protection relevant to the appeal, pursued for a year, with at least 10 members and a resolution authorising the appeal, proved by statutory declaration. Only where a Natura impact statement or an environmental impact assessment report was submitted (2026 Act s.45). The adjoining-owner leave route survives, with a 4-week decision and 2 weeks to lodge once granted. s.102 |
For an individual or a residents' group the rule is unchanged: make a written submission to the authority or there is no right of appeal. For an environmental company, have the paperwork before the decision, not after. |
| The grounds | Grounds stated in the appeal; the Board could invite and consider further submissions. | substantive An appellant may not elaborate on the grounds, make further submissions on them, or add grounds after lodging, and the Commission will not consider any that arrive. Only what accompanied the appeal is considered, save where the Act allows otherwise. s.103(3) |
On our reading, the appeal is the whole case. Lodge complete: every ground, every document, on day one. |
| Public notice of the appeal | None. Lodging the appeal was the whole step. | procedural Before bringing an appeal a person must comply with such public notice requirements as may be prescribed. s.103(8) |
New, and easy to miss inside a 4-week window that cannot be extended. The form of notice is for the regulations, which are not yet made, so watch for it before the first appeals are lodged under the new Part. |
| Revised plans on appeal | Permitted at the Board's discretion. | procedural The applicant may submit revised plans with a first-party appeal or in a submission as notice party, provided they do not substantially alter the nature of the development. The Commission cannot grant something not substantially the same as what was decided. s.106, s.109 |
Modest, targeted revisions; not a redesign. |
| Time for the Commission to decide | 18 weeks as a statutory objective (s.126), routinely missed with no consequence. | substantive 18 weeks, or 26 with an EIAR. Miss it and the Commission must publish a notice and decide within a further 4 weeks; miss that and it repays a set percentage of the fee and has 2 more weeks; miss that and it must tell the Minister and the OPR and decide within a week, with the OPR able to review its performance. Figures published in the annual report. s.113 |
In our view, the first enforceable clock on the appeal body in the history of the system. The fee percentage is for the regulations. |
| Vexatious appeals | s.138: dismissal where vexatious, frivolous, without substance, or brought to delay or extract an inducement. | carried over Same powers. s.108 |
Unchanged. |
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where the exemptions live | s.4(1) in the Act (interior works, agriculture, local authority works and the rest) plus the classes in the 2001 Regulations under s.4(2). | substantive The Act lists no exemptions. All of them are to be prescribed by regulation. Exemptions are disapplied where EIA or AA is required (save excepted cases) and where a protected structure is affected. No exemption for works to, or a change of use of, an unauthorised development. s.9 |
Until the s.9 regulations are made, it is not possible to say exactly what will be exempt. What was exempt under the 2000 Act and carried out before commencement stays exempt (s.9(8)). The July 2026 residential exemptions (S.I. 338 to 344 of 2026) were made under the 2000 Act. |
| Declarations | s.5: any person may ask; 4 weeks; referral to the Board within 4 weeks. | substantive Only the owner, an occupier or a person acting with the owner's consent, or an environmental NGO on conditions. A requester who is not the owner must notify the owner. 8 weeks. Appeal to the Commission within 4 weeks. Not binding on people who were not party to it. And a new use: a person carrying out development under a permission may ask what the permission or a condition means or covers. s.10, s.11 |
On our reading, a neighbour can no longer use s.5 to test someone else's works. The main route left to them appears to be a written complaint to the enforcement authority, which is covered under Enforcement below. s.10(2)(c) appears to be the way to have an authority confirm that a condition, typically "in accordance with plans", does not preclude the change proposed. |
| Unauthorised development | Case law established that exempted development classes could not be used to regularise unauthorised works, but the Act did not say so directly. | procedural Express: development is not exempted development if it consists of any works to, or change in use of, an unauthorised development. s.9(5) |
The point clients trip over most often. An extension that would be exempt on a lawful house is not exempt on an unauthorised one, and neither is a change of use. Regularise first, then build. |
| Starting a permitted change of use | Nothing required. The use commenced. | procedural Where permission is granted solely for a material change in use, the developer must lodge a notice with the planning authority not less than 2 weeks before the change occurs, specifying the date it will happen. s.181(4) |
Small, new, and appears to apply to every change of use permission. Put it on the file at the point the grant issues rather than discovering it on the day the tenant wants to open. |
| Demolishing a protected structure | An express statutory bar, since 24 December 2002. s.57(10)(b): a planning authority, or the Board on appeal, shall not grant permission for the demolition of a protected structure or proposed protected structure, save in exceptional circumstances. s.57(10)(b) | widened Permission shall not be granted for development involving or requiring the demolition of a protected structure or proposed protected structure unless the authority or the Commission is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, and the section applies notwithstanding any other provision of the Act. s.170 |
The bar is not new; its reach is. "Involve or require" appears wider than "permission for the demolition", so it is likely to catch partial demolition and a scheme whose delivery requires demolition even where the demolition is not the development applied for. The "notwithstanding" clause is also new, so on our reading the bar cannot be traded off against the merits of a replacement scheme or carried by the material contravention route. "Exceptional circumstances" was undefined under s.57(10)(b) and remains undefined, so the existing approach to the phrase should carry over. Build the case into the application rather than leaving it to appeal. Read it with s.310(6), which makes a positive declaration mandatory where works are proportionate to bringing a protected structure back into residential use, do not materially affect the exterior, and do not subdivide it into more than one dwelling. Read together, the Act appears to push hard towards reuse and hard against demolition. |
| A site carrying a section 47 agreement | A s.47 agreement binds successors in title and is enforceable by the authority, but it is not a ground of refusal. Permission could be granted that was inconsistent with the agreement, and the agreement fought about separately. There was also no route to discharge or modify one. | substantive Permission shall not be granted if, in the authority's or the Commission's opinion, implementing it would amount to, or would be likely to occasion, a breach of an agreement under s.257. Existing s.47 and 1963 Act agreements are deemed to be s.257 agreements. In exchange, s.257 creates the exit that never existed: the owner, or anyone deriving title from the owner, may apply to discharge or modify the agreement where continued compliance would be unduly burdensome or is unnecessary, on a nine-factor test including time elapsed, change in the character of the neighbourhood, change in plan objectives, and whether the agreement continues to secure any practical benefit. s.171, s.257(4), (5), (7), (13) |
This is likely to change site purchase advice. An occupancy agreement on a rural permission, an open space agreement on an estate, a use restriction from the 1970s: all would become a bar to a fresh permission that would breach them, and the test appears to reach indirect breaches because it covers anything "likely to occasion" one. On our reading the sequence is now: discharge or modify the agreement first, then apply. Applying first is unlikely to succeed. Search the folio and the planning file for a s.47 agreement before advising on what can be built. Note the counterweight: s.257(4) makes breach of an agreement entered into pursuant to a condition a breach of the condition itself, so the enforcement code comes into play as well. |
| A second application while an appeal is running | Already barred, and on wider terms. No application could be made for the same development or for development of the same description as a scheme under appeal, until the Board decided, or the appeal was withdrawn or dismissed. The authority had to return the application, the material with it and the fee. "A dispute" about whether it was the same development, or of the same description, could be referred to the Board. s.37(5); DM Guidelines 2007, para. 8.13 | narrowed The bar is restated, catching only "the same development". The "development of the same description" limb is not carried over. The authority shall refuse to consider the application and notify the applicant; the section does not require the fee back. Referral of a dispute is confined to the planning authority or the applicant. s.176 |
This is a restatement that narrows, not a new prohibition. The parallel fallback application was already barred in 2000. What changes is that a materially revised scheme, which could previously have been refused acceptance as development of the same description, is on the face of s.176 outside the bar. "The same development" is undefined in both Acts, so the existing authority on the phrase should carry over, and on a borderline case the s.176(3) referral is better than lodging and being refused consideration. A third-party appellant has no referral route of their own. Related trap at s.172(5): if an applicant withdraws the application after a favourable first-instance decision while a third-party appeal is running, the appeal falls and so does the decision, because no permission may then be granted on foot of that application. That appears to offer a clean exit for an applicant who wants to start again, and it means an objector's appeal could be rendered moot without the objector's involvement. |
Part 6 gathers appropriate assessment and environmental impact assessment into one place for the first time. The 2026 Act rewrote most of it, so the consolidated text of the 2024 Act cannot be read on its own here.
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screening before applying | No formal route. Screening happened once the application was in, or informally at pre-application. | substantive A person intending to apply may ask the authority for a screening determination on whether EIA is required, before making any application. The authority must determine it not later than 90 days after receiving the required information, extendable only for exceptional circumstances relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the development, with written reasons and an expected date. The determination is published with reasons. s.231 |
In our view, the most useful new tool in the Part. For a marginal sub-threshold scheme, a quarry extension or a solar farm, it should turn the central risk of the project into a question that can be answered on a fixed clock before money is spent on an application. |
| Submitting an EIAR | An EIS could be volunteered, and screening could be disputed. | substantive Where an application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment report, the authority shall not screen and shall not grant permission unless it has carried out a full environmental impact assessment. s.226(2) |
On our reading, lodging an EIAR is irreversible. It converts the application into a full EIA application by operation of law, with the 12 week decision period, the longer appeal period and no way back. Decide before lodging, not after. The same logic runs the other way for retrospective consent, where lodging a Natura impact statement or an EIAR deems the assessment to be required (s.129(9)). |
| Submission period on an EIA application | Set by the regulations, as with any application. | procedural The Act fixes a floor. Where the EIAR accompanies the application, the period is the prescribed period or 30 days from the date of the notice, whichever expires later. Where the EIAR is submitted later on foot of a notice, the period is 5 weeks, or as prescribed. s.234(6) |
The one submission period the Act itself sets. For ordinary applications the Act sets none at all, as above. Any move of the general period to 6 weeks would sit above this floor and should not disturb it. |
| Scoping | A scoping opinion could be requested and was commonly given, without a statutory framework. | procedural A statutory request for a written opinion on the scope and level of detail of the EIAR. Where one is given, the EIAR shall be consistent with it. The authority's failure to give it in time does not stop the applicant applying, and giving it does not stop the authority requiring further information later. s.233 |
Asymmetric: it binds the applicant and not the authority. Worth requesting where the value is in narrowing the work, with that limitation understood. |
| Missing a Part 6 deadline | Failure to respond generally led to a refusal, which could be appealed. | substantive Failure to supply information requested for appropriate assessment screening, failure to supply a Natura impact statement when required, and failure to supply information for the appropriate assessment itself each mean the application is deemed to have been withdrawn. The same applies to a s.10 declaration request or appeal. ss.212(4), 212(9), 217(3), 214, 232 |
On our reading, not a refusal but a deemed withdrawal, which would leave no decision to appeal and no fee returned. Diary every Part 6 information deadline as though it were a statutory time limit, because in effect it is. |
| Council and State schemes | The authority screened its own Part 8 development, with no statutory separation and no appeal on the screening. | substantive Staff who worked on formulating the proposal may not carry out the screening, and those who do must not be under the direction, control or supervision of anyone who did. Any person may appeal a screening-out to the Commission within 4 weeks of publication. s.213(8), (13), s.225(4), (5) |
A free-standing appeal, open to anyone, on a fixed clock, decided by the Commission, and it does not depend on having made a submission. This appears to be the main remaining third party route against a Part 8 successor scheme. |
| Renewable energy and European sites | Imperative reasons of overriding public interest had to be established in full in every case. | substantive Where the development consists of plants producing energy from renewable sources, storage of the energy they produce, or the connection of such plants to electricity, gas or heat grids, imperative reasons of overriding public interest are deemed to exist, in accordance with Article 16f of the Renewable Energy Directive. s.219(4), s.221(4), s.206(12) for plans |
One of the three limbs of the derogation is conceded by statute, for the grid connection as well as the generating plant. What remains to be shown is the absence of alternative solutions and the adequacy of compensatory measures. We are not aware of any other class of development that starts from that position. |
Chapter 1 of Part 9 has applied to decisions under the 2024 Act since 1 August 2025, and since 12 August 2026 to remaining decisions under the 2000 Act as well (2026 Act s.115). It is included here because it changes how any grant is challenged and how long it stays exposed.
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting proceedings | s.50: apply to the High Court for leave, on notice, showing substantial grounds and sufficient interest. | substantive No leave stage. Proceedings start by originating notice of motion, grounded on a statement and a verifying affidavit, with the decision-maker, respondents and notice parties told no later than the day of issue. s.280 |
Faster to start, and the applicant for permission hears about it on day one rather than at a leave hearing. It also means the existence of proceedings no longer says much about their merit, because nothing has been filtered. |
| Striking out | The leave stage did the filtering. Substantial grounds had to be shown before the case could proceed. | substantive Any party may apply at any time to strike out, on any of four grounds: no sufficient interest in the grounds pleaded; out of time; failure to exhaust an available appeal or other administrative remedy; or the grounds disclose no arguable case or are bound to fail. The Court may strike out in part, against some applicants only or on some grounds only. s.283 |
The filter has moved from the front of the case to the back, and from the applicant to the respondent. It is now for the authority or the developer to bring the motion rather than for the challenger to get over a threshold. Two knock-on points: a neighbour who never appealed to the Commission would be exposed on the third ground, and grounds struck out under s.283 also lose access to the costs assistance mechanism (s.296(2)(g)). |
| Time limit | 8 weeks from the decision, extendable for good and sufficient reason. | carried over 8 weeks. Extension only where the reason is good and sufficient and the delay was outside the control of the party and its lawyers. s.281 |
The period is the same; the extension test is harder. |
| Appeals from the High Court | s.50A: appeal to the Court of Appeal only with a certificate from the High Court on a point of law of exceptional public importance. | substantive No appeal to the Court of Appeal at all. Appeal to the Supreme Court only on an application for leave under Article 34.5.4°, save on constitutional validity. s.287 |
One court, one shot, then the Supreme Court's own leave filter. This is what the Department means by removing the Court of Appeal from planning cases. |
| Standing | Sufficient interest in the matter. | substantive Sufficient interest in the matter to which each ground relates. The default test is being directly or indirectly materially affected. Two ways round it: an applicant who made a material submission to the decision-maker, in accordance with the requirements, has a sufficient interest (s.286(3)); and an environmental company on the year-old, ten-member, resolution tests (s.286(2)). An interest is not limited to an interest in land or a financial interest. s.285, s.286 |
Ground by ground. A resident with an interest in traffic may not be able to plead a habitats point. The practical answer for an individual is s.286(3): make a proper written submission at application stage and standing should follow. |
| Residents' groups and unincorporated bodies | An unincorporated group could in practice sue in the name of a member or officer without a statutory checklist. | substantive An unincorporated body has no sufficient interest unless it is a partnership, a limited partnership, able to sue under Order 14, or it has a written constitution, holds a vote of its members under that constitution, is authorised by not less than two thirds of those voting, and files an affidavit averring to all of that and to the total membership, exhibiting a list of the names and addresses of every member who voted in favour. s.286(4) |
The exhibited list is likely to be the part that bites. An informal committee would not satisfy this, and every supporter would end up named on the court file. A group has three realistic options: incorporate a year in advance and use s.286(2); find one member who made a material submission and sue in that person's own name under s.286(3); or constitute properly and accept the disclosure. |
| Remedies | In practice certiorari or nothing. A defective condition or a defective reason could bring down the whole permission. | substantive Instead of quashing, the Court may order the decision-maker to amend the decision or document where the ground rests on an error, the amendment would address or moot it, and it is within the body's jurisdiction. It may adjourn for that to happen and then strike out the ground. Separately it may quash part of a decision only, and remit with directions. s.288, s.289 |
A codified answer to the all-or-nothing quash, and in our view the main piece of good news in the Part for a permission holder. The authority may be able to invite it by admitting the error. Plead for severance and amendment in the alternative rather than treating the permission as standing or falling as a whole. |
| Costs | s.50B special costs rules in environmental cases, and the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. | substantive The default is that each party, including a notice party, bears its own costs. A successful applicant may be awarded costs to the extent it obtains relief, capped at amounts set by S.I. 200 of 2026 unless there is a reason of exceptional public importance. Costs may be ordered against a party for a frivolous or vexatious claim, for proceedings brought for the sole purpose of delay or of extracting payment, for the manner of conduct, or for contempt. No security for costs and no undertaking as to damages. An environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism contributes to the costs of applicants who lose or partly lose, subject to a means and eligibility assessment and a long list of disqualifications. ss.291 to 302, S.I. 200/2026 |
Check which costs regime applies before advising on exposure, because the Act splits them. Proceedings brought under s.303A against a 2000 Act decision run on the new procedure but are expressly not Part 9 proceedings for the costs Chapter (s.303A(3)), so on our reading s.50B and the 2011 Act govern their costs. New procedure, old costs. Which side of the line a case falls on turns on when the underlying procedure was initiated, not on when the decision issued. |
| Topic | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time limits | s.157: 7 years from commencement for unauthorised development; 7 years from expiry of the permission for a breach of it; no limit for conditions on ongoing use, or for quarries and peat extraction. | carried over 7 years on the same triggers, expressly including 2000 Act permissions and their s.42 extensions. Conditions on ongoing use, quarries and peat: no limit. A statutory presumption that action was taken in time unless the respondent proves otherwise. s.353 |
The seven years is unchanged. The presumption shifts the burden of proving the date onto the person enforced against, which is likely to matter when records are thin. |
| Who enforces | The planning authority. | procedural The planning authority, a designated regional enforcement authority (s.356, partly in force since 2 October 2025), or MARA in the maritime area. Summary proceedings may also be brought by the Office of the Planning Regulator, and by an authority even where the offence was committed outside its own area. ss.346 to 357, s.355(1) |
Watch for the regional designation orders. The OPR as prosecutor is new. |
| Making a complaint | s.152: a written representation obliged the authority to issue a warning letter unless the development was trivial or the complaint vexatious. | procedural A written "planning complaint" obliges the authority to investigate, and to serve a warning letter as soon as may be and, as an objective, within 6 weeks, unless it goes straight to an urgent enforcement notice, an injunction or a prosecution, or considers the development trivial or minor or the complaint vexatious, frivolous or without substance. A decision not to serve must be notified to the complainant in writing within 2 weeks. Any later decision not to take enforcement action must be notified, with reasons, to the complainant and to everyone served with a warning letter. s.348, s.349 |
This is likely to matter more than it used to, because s.10 closes the declaration route to neighbours. A written complaint is now the main tool a neighbour has. Four weeks to respond to a warning letter, and the authority then has 12 weeks from the close of that period to decide whether to serve an enforcement notice, or to write explaining why it cannot and by when it will. Put the complaint in writing, be specific, and keep the correspondence: the reasons letter under s.348(8) is the document any challenge would be built on. |
| Planning injunction | s.160: any person, whether or not they have an interest in the land. | carried over Unchanged in substance. Any person may apply. Circuit Court where the market value of the land does not exceed €3,000,000. The onus of proving that a permission exists, or that the development is exempted development, is on the respondent. An authority's application cannot be stayed because a permission application or a s.10 declaration request has been made. s.351 |
Wider than the judicial review standing tests in the same Act: no submission, no material interest and no constitution are required. A grant of permission after proceedings start does not defeat the application unless the court is satisfied an order would serve no useful purpose. |
| Penalties | s.156: up to €12.7m and 2 years on indictment, with daily continuing offences. | substantive On indictment, a fine of up to €15,000,000 or 5 years imprisonment, or both. Class A fine or 12 months summarily. Daily continuing offences after conviction. For an unauthorised structure, a minimum fine tied to the construction cost. Fines are paid to the enforcement authority, not the Exchequer, and on conviction the court shall order payment of the authority's investigation and prosecution costs, including staff time and consultants, unless there are special and substantial reasons not to. s.354 |
The prison term more than doubles and the fine ceiling rises. The change likely to alter behaviour, though, is financial: an authority now keeps the fine and recovers its costs, so prosecuting should no longer be a net loss to a council. More prosecutions can be expected. |
Fees, forms, notice periods and the list of prescribed bodies come from regulations under the 2024 Act. Seven were published in draft on 18 September 2026, in the form to be signed by the Minister, and are not yet made; they are summarised in the news digest. Thirteen more followed on 28 September, including the Commission's own procedure and appeals regulations and eight sets on EIA procedure; all twenty remain in draft. The exempted development regulations under section 9 have not been published. Until they are, statements about what will be exempt on day one are guesses, and this page does not make them.