Part 4 was due to commence on 30 September 2026, then on Tuesday 13 October 2026. Both dates have been deferred. On 9 October 2026 the Department announced that commencement is deferred and that a new date will be notified, with sufficient advance notice; see the note below. Commencement now looks likely in November 2026, but no date has been confirmed. This page sets out what changes on the day, separately for applicants, for third parties and for permissions already granted, and which Act governs a file already in the system. The section is cited on every point.
The date is not yet fixed. 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 statutory instrument number to cite. Instruments are added to the circulars tracker as they are made.
The Act is being commenced in stages, not all at once. Some of it is already in force. This stage is the large one, and it is the one that affects anybody making, opposing or relying on a planning permission.
On our reading, commencement does not convert files already in the system. Which Act governs an application appears to be fixed by the date it was lodged, and to stay fixed through to appeal.
An application lodged before Part 4 commences would be decided under the old Act, and appealed under the old Act, however long that takes. An application lodged on or after the day Part 4 commences would be a new Act application from the start. We see nothing in the Act that moves a file from one regime to the other.
That comes from section 626. It provides that despite the repeal, "that Act" continues to apply in relation to an application made before the repeal. The words are "that Act", not "that provision", so on our reading the whole of the 2000 Act keeps running for those files: its decision periods, its compliance procedure, its material contravention route, outline permission, duration, and the environmental assessment and renewable energy provisions.
The appeal appears to follow the application. An appeal lodged after Part 4 commences against a decision on an earlier application would be an old Act appeal, because the Act continues to apply "in relation to" the application and the appeal is in relation to it.
Two further provisions matter. Section 627 carries the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 forward as if they had been made under the new Act, so the familiar regulations should not fall away on the day. And section 188 deems a permission granted under the old Act to be a permission under the new one, which appears to be how the new powers to alter and amend a permission reach the existing stock.
The practical result is likely to be that planning authorities and the Commission run two regimes alongside each other for several years, and the first question on any file is likely to be when it was lodged.
These three are already law under the 2000 Act. They are set out here because they are close in subject to provisions that commence with Part 4, and the dates matter when working out which rules apply to a file.
Section 247(1A) of the 2000 Act has required it since 22 October 2018, inserted by section 43(b) of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2018 and commenced by S.I. 436 of 2018. Consultation comprising at least one meeting is required 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.
What changes when Part 4 commences: the thresholds move from "more than" to "not less than", so a scheme of exactly 10 units or exactly 1,000 m² would be caught where it is not caught today. Section 247(1) confines the request to a person with an interest in the land and requires the authority's agreement; section 90(1)(a) is open to any eligible intending applicant. Section 247(4), under which an authority may hold consultations only at times and places it specifies, appears to have no successor. And the applicant's entitlement under section 247(1A)(b) to one extension of the four weeks on request does not appear to be carried forward.
Sections 32H to 32L of the 2000 Act have provided this since 16 December 2023, inserted by the 2022 Act and commenced by S.I. 645 of 2023, for any application under section 34, not only large-scale residential development. Four weeks to the meeting, four weeks to the opinion, the justification may expressly rest on technology becoming available after the application, and the applicant undertakes to give two or more options, or parameters, or a combination of both.
The route covers a specification, such as a turbine, panel, battery or plant model, that will not be fixed until procurement, and it is available now. What the new Act adds is at decision stage: sections 98(2) and 123(2) expressly authorise the conditions that hold the applicant to the stated options and require the particulars before commencement, and Schedule 5 Part 1 paragraphs 37 and 38 place both outside any compensation claim.
Section 32A(1)(b)(ii) of the 2000 Act already confines the LRD route to land the zoning of which facilitates its use for the purposes proposed, section 32A(2) requires the authority to refuse to consider an application that does not satisfy it, and section 32A(3) returns the application and the fee with reasons. Sections 89(2)(b) and 172(4) of the new Act restate all three. The six-month shelf life on the LRD opinion is also already in section 32A(1).
What changes when Part 4 commences is the zone exclusion. LRD is currently confined to land outside a strategic development zone. Once Part 4 commences, it is confined to land outside an SDZ, an urban development zone and a candidate urban development zone. A residential scheme inside a candidate UDZ therefore appears to cease to be LRD, and the LRD process would no longer apply to it.
All three arrived by amendment to the 2000 Act, in 2018, 2021, 2022 and 2023. The numbering does not correspond between the two Acts, so the revised text of the 2000 Act is the place to check whether a provision already exists in some form.
Marked substantive, procedural or carried over. These apply to applications lodged on or after the day Part 4 commences; a file lodged before that stays on the 2000 Act.
| Issue | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| After the grant, and this one attaches to the permission for its life | |||
| Compliance and points of detail | s.34(5): submit points of detail for agreement, and if the authority does nothing for 8 weeks it is deemed to have agreed. | substantive Same 8 weeks, but silence is deemed NOT agreed, and the developer must refer to the Commission within 4 weeks of being told agreement cannot be reached, or lose it. s.87(9) to (13) |
The reversal is likely to have a long reach, for two reasons. The consequence of the authority not responding moves from the authority to the developer. And on our reading it operates after grant, on every compliance submission for the life of the permission, so a permission granted on a pre-commencement application carries the old default for years. Establish which Act a permission issued under before advising, because the answer is likely to be opposite. Note the limit of the backstop at s.87(12) and (13), under which the Commission's own silence counts as agreement: it is keyed to s.87(9)(a)(iii) and applies to outer maritime development only. On an ordinary land-based permission a referral to the Commission appears to have no deemed outcome, and would fall to be determined within the general 18 weeks in s.361. |
| Getting the permission | |||
| What must go in with the application | Article 22 of the 2001 Regulations: the form, notices, plans, the fee, and where the applicant is not the owner the owner's consent. Floor plans of any building to be demolished. No impact assessment for demolishing an ordinary building. | procedural Draft regulation 11 carries the list over with three additions. Documentary evidence of proof of eligibility under s.85 on every application, so an owner lodges proof of title, not only a non-owner's consent letter (regulation 11(3)(f)). An "impact assessment" where the application involves demolishing a structure that is not a protected structure, a proposed protected structure or a structure in an architectural conservation area (regulation 11(7)); floor plans of that structure are no longer required (regulation 11(6)). And the Part V item becomes the s.254 exemption certificate or, where one has been applied for, the authority's acknowledgement letter (regulation 11(3)(e)). draft regulation 11; s.85 |
Two of these are validation items, and an application that lacks one would be invalid under regulation 15(3). The impact assessment for demolition is undefined in the draft and there is no guidance on its scope; until there is, a short statement of what is being removed, its age and condition, and the effect of its loss on the street and on neighbouring property is the sensible minimum. The proof of eligibility item appears to resolve a point that used to be raised only by objectors: it would become the authority's own check at lodgement. |
| Material contravention | s.34(6): newspaper notice naming the objective, copies to the applicant, regional assembly, prescribed bodies and submitters, 4 weeks for submissions, chief executive's report within 6 weeks, then the members resolve. | substantive The default is refusal. A resolution needs a chief executive's proposal, three quarters of the total membership rather than of those present and voting, a fee for submissions, and the development must be consistent with the NPF, a National Planning Policy and Measure or the regional strategy on the very matters contravened. Copies also to the OPR. s.99, s.110 on appeal, s.124 at the Commission |
Three quarters of total membership is likely to be a hard number on a divided council, and it is a different arithmetic from three quarters of those in the room. The consistency test appears to be a substantive hurdle that a scheme contravening a density or height objective may fail on its own terms. On appeal s.110 appears narrower again: default refusal and only three gateways, strategic or national importance, conflicting or ambiguous plan objectives, or national policy consistency. A national policy citation is unlikely to be decorative any longer. |
| Outline permission | s.36: no numerical limit, and s.36(3)(c) kept duration off an outline entirely. | substantive Limited to 4 housing units or fewer, not available for a protected structure, and not available where AA or EIA is required. s.96(6): the duration of the full permission runs from the grant of the outline. s.96(1), (6), (7) |
A 2024 Act outline both narrows the scope and starts the duration clock earlier. An outline already granted under s.36 appears unaffected: s.96(10) deems it an outline permission under the new Act whatever its size, and on our reading the four-unit cap does not apply to it. |
| Duration | s.41 lets the authority specify not less than 2 years for any development and not more than 10 for residential, but the applicant cannot request it. | substantive The applicant may request a duration, the public notice must state the duration sought, the 2 to 10 year range reaches all development, and Chapter 4 development can exceed 10 years. s.177 |
On a phased or long-lead scheme this may be the most useful thing in Part 4. Decide the duration before lodging, because it goes in the public notice and does not appear capable of being added later. Note the companion obligation: a residential application of 10 or more units must specify the duration sought and carry a phasing plan (s.178), which appears to be the evidence answering the s.86(3)(f) duty to consider the likelihood of completion. |
| A national standard that conflicts with the development plan | s.34(2)(aa): the authority shall apply, where relevant, the specific planning policy requirements of the Minister's guidelines. s.34(2)(ba): where such a requirement differs from the development plan, it shall, to the extent that it differs, apply instead of the provisions of the development plan. Automatic, with no resolution and no discretion. s.34(2) | substantive s.86 reproduces neither paragraph. The authority is to have regard to the provisions of a National Planning Statement that are not the subject of a provision in a plan, or that conflict with one (s.86(1)(a)(ii), as substituted by s.36 of the 2026 Act). Regard, not application instead of the plan, and s.86(5) expressly allows a decision that is inconsistent with a Statement provision in a material respect, provided the authority identifies the provision and states its main reasons. s.86 |
Specific Planning Policy Requirements became National Planning Policies and Measures on 2 October 2025, when s.28 of the 2000 Act was repealed, but s.34(2)(ba) kept the override alive for decisions. On the face of the new Act that override does not survive into s.86. The likely consequence is concrete: a scheme that meets a national standard but breaches a surviving, more restrictive plan standard is today permitted as of course, because the plan provision does not apply. Once Part 4 commences, on this reading, the plan provision would apply, so the scheme would materially contravene the development plan and need the s.99 route and a resolution of not less than three-quarters of the members. The national standard is not irrelevant there: s.99(2)(b) permits that resolution only where the development is consistent with the National Planning Policies and Measures dealing with the same matter, and s.99(4)(c)(iii) requires the chief executive to advise the members on compliance with National Planning Statements. So the standard appears to become the condition that opens the material contravention route rather than something that disapplies the plan, and a scheme breaching both plan and national standard could not be passed by resolution at all. The applicant would move from entitlement to a vote. The Act's answer is that plans are varied into consistency: s.61 requires a report within two months of a National Planning Statement issuing, and s.62 allows an expedited variation. Neither appears to be triggered by the SPPRs now in force. Those became National Planning Policies and Measures on 2 October 2025 by conversion under s.27, and s.61 and s.546(1)(c) are keyed to a Statement the Minister issues or to new or amended NPPMs. No plan has been required to vary for a converted SPPR under either Act. For apartments the gap should close once the Apartment Statement is made; for heights, parking, open space and separation distances there is no Statement in prospect. The Oireachtas reopened s.86(1)(a)(ii) in the 2026 Act, added the conflict limb, and did not restore the override, which suggests a decision rather than an oversight. This reading has not been tested. If a scheme depends on a national standard applying instead of a plan provision, the lodgement date matters. See the national standards. |
| Demolishing a protected structure | Already barred. s.57(10)(b), in force since 24 December 2002: 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 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, permission shall not be granted for development that would involve or require the demolition of a protected structure, or a proposed protected structure, unless the authority or the Commission is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist." s.170 |
The bar itself is 24 years old. What changes is its reach. "Involve or require" appears wider than "permission for the demolition": on our reading it catches partial demolition, and catches a scheme whose delivery requires demolition even where the demolition is not the development applied for. That would reach the common case of a redevelopment whose feasibility depends on losing a structure the application never mentions. The "notwithstanding" clause is also new, and appears to put the bar above everything else in Part 4 including the material contravention route. "Exceptional circumstances" remains undefined, as it was under s.57(10)(b), so the existing approach to that phrase should carry over. Build the case into the application rather than leaving it to appeal. Read it alongside s.310(6), which makes a positive declaration mandatory for works proportionate to bringing a protected structure back into residential use that leave the exterior character intact and do not subdivide it. 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 and is enforceable, but it is not a ground of refusal. Permission inconsistent with it could be granted and the agreement fought about separately. There was also no route to discharge or modify one. | substantive Permission shall not be granted if implementing it would amount to, or would be likely to occasion, a breach of a s.257 agreement. s.257(13) deems existing s.47 and 1963 Act agreements to be s.257 agreements. In exchange, s.257(5) and (7) create an exit: discharge or modification where continued compliance would be unduly burdensome or is unnecessary, on a nine-factor test. s.171, s.257 |
This is likely to change site purchase advice. Every historic occupancy, open space or use restriction appears to become a bar to a fresh permission that would breach it, and "likely to occasion" would reach indirect breaches. The sequence now appears to be: discharge or modify the agreement first, then apply. Search the folio and the planning file for a s.47 agreement before advising on what can be built. Note the counterweight at s.257(4): breach of an agreement entered into pursuant to a condition becomes a breach of the condition, so the enforcement code would apply as well. |
| A second application while an appeal runs | Already barred, and on wider terms: no application for the same development or for development of the same description as a scheme under appeal, with the application and the fee returned. s.37(5) | narrowed Restated, but catching only "the same development". The "same description" limb is not carried over, the fee is not mentioned, and referral of a dispute is confined to the authority or the applicant. s.176 |
Not a new prohibition. A materially revised parallel scheme, previously refusable as development of the same description, appears on the face of s.176 to fall outside the bar. "The same development" is undefined in both Acts, so on a borderline case the s.176(3) referral is better than lodging and being refused consideration. 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, on our reading the appeal falls and so does the decision, because no permission may then be granted on foot of that application. |
| The decision period | 8 weeks; 4 from a further information response. An authority that misses must decide and refund the fee, with a deemed grant if it is silent 12 weeks later, never where EIA, EIA screening or AA applies (s.34(8)(f), 2010). | substantive 8 weeks, 12 where AA or EIA applies. No deemed grant at all. The authority must ask the applicant's consent to at most 4 further weeks. Refusal of consent means deemed refusal with all fees repaid; consent and a further miss costs three times the fee capped at €10,000. A late decision is valid. s.101 |
What remained of the deemed grant after 2010 appears to go entirely. s.101(5)(c) is likely to be a live trap: under it, silence by the applicant in response to a consent request is consent. Diary the reply. Note also that a small-scale solar deemed grant was revived in 2025 at s.34H(4), so it would be wrong to say deemed grants are being abolished across the board. Under the draft Control of Development Regulations the authority may not decide before six weeks from receipt (regulation 18), and a further information request must issue within eight weeks of receipt, twelve with an EIAR or NIS, and may be made once only, on technical or environmental detail not foreseeable at lodgement, on new matters raised in submissions, or to verify particulars in the application (regulation 20). An authority that has obtained the applicant's consent to more time therefore appears already to have passed the point at which it could ask for further information unless it did so inside the original period; the Irish Planning Institute has said it will seek clarity on that. |
| Housing growth targets | Nothing express. Authorities refuse on the basis that a settlement's allocation in the core strategy is 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 so as to exceed it where the grant is consistent with the settlement objectives in the development plan and any area plan and the permissions already granted do not undermine the target's purpose. Nor may it refuse because an area plan has not been made, unless the development plan itself says so. s.86(6), (7), (8) |
This is likely to be the answer to the commonest small-town and rural refusal ground. Note the limits: "for the reason only" means a refusal coupling the target with a genuine planning reason would survive, and s.86(8) enables a grant rather than compelling one. The case to build is that the cumulative position does not undermine the underlying purpose of the target. |
| Part V on a conversion or refurbishment | Part V has no list of exemptions. | substantive s.245(2) has six. The two that matter: conversion of an existing building, or reconstruction, to create one or more dwellings where 50 per cent or more of the existing external fabric is retained, with no unit or site area threshold; and student accommodation. s.245(2), s.254 |
On a refurbishment or over-the-shop conversion retaining half the external fabric that appears to be a complete Part V exemption which does not exist under the 2000 Act. The s.254 certificate also appears better than s.97: the authority "shall grant" rather than "may", a further information request must come within 4 weeks, a refusal must state reasons, and there is an appeal to the Circuit Court within 3 weeks which may direct the authority to grant. On a greenfield housing scheme the Part V position appears materially the same. |
| A renewable scheme with an appropriate assessment problem | s.177AA(10), in force since 6 August 2025, presumes a renewable energy plant, its grid connection works and related grid or storage assets to be in the overriding public interest. But the authority must send a statement of case to the Minister, who decides whether the compensatory measures suffice; if not sufficient, the authority shall not grant (ss.177AB, 177AC). | substantive ss.219(4) and 221(4) deem imperative reasons of overriding public interest to exist for generation, storage and grid connection, and the competent authority itself concludes on absence of alternatives, IROPI and the adequacy of the compensatory measures proposed by the applicant. No ministerial stage. ss.219, 221 |
The point of difference is not the availability of overriding public interest itself, which exists under both Acts, as a presumption under the old and a deeming under the new. It is that the ministerial stage appears to disappear, and with it the position under s.177AB(4) that the authority shall not grant where the Minister finds the compensatory measures insufficient. Against that, s.626 preserves ss.34D to 34H for a pre-commencement application, including the 52-week outer limit in s.34E running from the Planning Acknowledgement of Completeness. |
| Where the application goes | Strategic infrastructure went direct to the Board under Part XXI; everything else to the planning authority. | substantive Six classes of Chapter 4 development go direct to the Commission with no appeal: retrospective consent, strategic infrastructure, electricity transmission (no threshold), strategic gas including any renewable gas injection point (no threshold), maritime, and local or State authority development requiring EIA or AA. s.115(2): if any PART of a development is Chapter 4, the ENTIRE development goes to the Commission. s.115, s.82, Schedules 1 and 2 |
Test every element of a mixed scheme before lodging locally, because s.172(4)(c) returns a misfiled application with the fee. Two points for renewables: there is no solar class in Schedule 1, so on our reading onshore solar would not be strategic infrastructure at any scale; but Schedule 2 paragraph 19 catches any floating or fixed solar installation in the nearshore area with no threshold at all. Onshore wind is strategic infrastructure at 25 turbines or 50 MW, as alternatives, so on modern machines the output limb is likely to bite first. Note also s.115(3): a statutory undertaker carrying out maintenance or improvement of existing infrastructure may elect back to the local authority route. |
| A poor compliance history | s.35 allowed refusal for past failures to comply, with an appeal to the Board. | substantive s.173: permission shall be refused where the authority forms the opinion that there is a real and substantial risk the development would not be completed, following notice and an opportunity to make submissions. Reaches partnerships, registered societies, related companies, companies under common control and shadow directorships in both directions. s.173 |
The main defence appears to be s.173(2)(b): only failures of a substantial nature may be considered. But there is no appeal to the Commission, and the challenge is a motion on notice to the High Court within 8 weeks, "notwithstanding section 379 and Part 9", so on our reading outside the judicial review procedure entirely, with no leave stage and none of the Part 9 standing or costs rules. A clean corporate vehicle is unlikely by itself to answer it. |
These apply to appeals, submissions and declaration requests on files under the new Act. Several of them are procedural and carry a consequence if missed.
| Issue | 2000 Act | 2024 Act | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asking whether something is exempt | s.5: ANY PERSON may request a declaration. Four weeks to decide, and a referral to the Board within four weeks. A neighbour concerned about works next door could get a binding ruling. | substantive Only a "relevant person" may request one: the owner, the occupier, a person acting with the owner's consent, or a qualifying environmental company. Eight weeks. On our reading, a neighbour cannot request a declaration. s.10 |
A neighbour who wants a ruling on works next door appears to be left with the written planning complaint, which obliges the authority to investigate, to issue a warning letter within a six-week objective, to decide within 12 weeks of the close of the submission period, and to give written reasons for not acting. In the other direction, s.10(2)(c) adds a declaration on the meaning or scope of a permission or condition, which s.5 did not provide, though again only a relevant person may ask. |
| Questioning the applicant's legal interest | A standard objection ground. An objector could put the applicant to proof of sufficient legal interest in the land. | substantive Only an "interested person" may question eligibility, and that means the authority, the Commission, the owner, or a holder of a legal or beneficial interest. On our reading, an objector could not raise it in a submission or in court. s.85(3), (4) |
A ground that has been available since 2000 appears to close entirely. Any objection that would have relied on it is likely to need rebuilding on planning merits. |
| The observation window on an appeal | 4 weeks from receipt of the appeal by the Board (s.130(3)). | procedural 5 weeks, and counted from the end of the period for making the appeal, not from the date the appeal was lodged. s.365(2) |
A week longer, and easier to diary: on our reading, on an ordinary appeal the window would close nine weeks after the decision, whatever day the appeal was actually lodged. A party's own submission also moves from 4 weeks to 5 (s.364), as does a non-appellant's request for an oral hearing (s.369(3)(b)). |
| Missing the deadline | A late submission is not considered (article 29 of the 2001 Regulations), but the Act itself imposes no duty to return it. | substantive A late submission, or one not complying with any requirement, shall be returned and the authority or Commission shall not have regard to it. The only exceptions are a submission from the Minister or a prescribed body received within one week of expiry, and a submission from a Transboundary Convention state. s.86(4) |
Harder than the current position, and it appears to carry a consequence beyond the submission itself. s.286(3) grounds standing for a later judicial review on having made a submission "in accordance with the applicable requirements", so a late submission is likely also to cost standing to challenge the decision. Treat the closing date as absolute on every file. |
| The declaration required on a submission or appeal | No equivalent. Nothing accompanying a submission, an appeal or judicial review proceedings had to state the purpose for which it was made. s.138 allowed the Board to dismiss an appeal made with the sole intention of delaying development or securing a payment, but that was a power exercised after the event, not a requirement on the person making the appeal. | substantive A submission under Chapters 3 to 5 of Part 4, Part 5, or Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 6 (the scope as narrowed by s.129 of the 2026 Act) shall be accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form stating that it is not made for the purpose of delaying the development or of securing a payment, gift, consideration or other inducement. The same applies to an appeal to the Commission, except one brought by the applicant; to judicial review of a grant, where the declaration goes to the High Court; and to the withdrawal of any of them, where the declaration is confined to the payment limb. Failure to comply, or a declaration that is false or misleading in a material respect and known to be so, is an offence carrying a class A fine or 12 months. s.588 |
The form is Form No. 6 of Schedule 1 to the draft Planning and Development (Control of Development, Planning Authorities) Regulations 2026, published on 18 September 2026 and not yet made. The declarant states that the submission is not made for the purpose of delaying development or securing a payment, signs and dates it; no witness is required, only a person over 18 may sign, and the form is not published with the submission. Regulation 17(5) requires it with a submission on an application, regulation 23 with a submission on a material contravention notice. One point is unresolved: it is not settled whether a missing declaration makes an appeal invalid or exposes the appellant to the offence alone: s.360(1) lists the requirements for a valid appeal and does not mention s.588. The safer course is to file the declaration with the appeal. The withdrawal limb is likely to be the one most easily overlooked, because withdrawing a submission or an appeal has never required anything beyond a letter. Under s.588(7), added by the 2026 Act, no declaration is required from a planning authority, a Minister or public body, a prescribed body entitled to notice, MARA, the CRU or a Transboundary Convention state. Private third parties appear to be the ones caught. |
| A payment sought in return for not objecting | Not an offence. s.138 allowed the Board to dismiss an appeal made with the sole intention of securing a payment, and that was the only sanction. | substantive A person shall not request another to pay money or a benefit in kind, or to do anything conferring a financial or other economic benefit, in consideration of anyone agreeing not to make a submission, not to appeal, or not to bring judicial review, or agreeing to withdraw any of them. Summary offence, fine not exceeding €5,000 or 12 months or both. Separately, the High Court may, on the application of an applicant for permission, direct the planning authority to DISREGARD a submission where such a request was made in connection with it. s.587 |
On our reading the offence sits on the person making the request and is complete when the request is made, whether or not anything is paid. The civil remedy runs the other way: a submission can be left out of account entirely rather than given less weight, and s.587(4)(c) requires the applicant to give the authority seven days' written notice before applying. The period from the application to its final determination does not count towards the decision period under s.98, so the application should not time out while the High Court deals with it. |
| Having an appeal dismissed | s.138: dismissal only where the appeal is vexatious, frivolous, without substance or foundation, or made with the sole intention of delaying or securing payment. High, pejorative and rarely met. | substantive The limiting words are not carried over. The Commission may dismiss where satisfied the matter should not be further considered having regard to (a) its nature or contents, including any question it raises, or (b) any relevant decision of a planning authority or the Commission. Reasons required. s.374 |
An open discretion appears to replace a bad-faith test. An appeal that re-runs points already decided would fall within limb (b) on its terms. Read it with s.360(1)(e) and (3), under which an appeal that does not state the grounds in full, with the reasons, considerations and arguments for each, is invalid, and with s.360(5) and (7), under which the grounds cannot be elaborated later and no document other than those accompanying the appeal will be considered. The written appeal is likely to be the whole case. |
| Being heard at an oral hearing | The person conducting the hearing controls it, may limit time and refuse irrelevant or repetitive material, but there is no power to define the issues in advance. | procedural The Commission may limit a hearing to any part of, or issue in, the appeal, and may direct that points be made on specified matters only, on the inspector's recommendation, enforceable by refusal. A fair-procedures valve allows an unlisted point where necessary. s.369(2), s.370(3)(b), (7)(e) |
Write the grounds so that every point needed later is visibly inside them, because the scoping direction is likely to be built on the written case. A point not apparent from the grounds may not be reachable at the hearing. And note the timing rule: an appellant must request an oral hearing at the same time as the appeal (s.369(3)(a)), or not at all. |
| The fee for an observation | Set by the Minister in regulations, and a fixed statutory figure. | procedural The Commission determines its own fees, subject to the Minister's approval, and may index them to the consumer price index every three years without approval, on 8 weeks' notice in a national newspaper. s.381 |
Check the Commission's published statement of fees before advising anyone on the cost of an observation, and check it again each year. The familiar figure is no longer fixed in an instrument. |
| Gains on the third-party side | |||
| Regularising unauthorised development | Part XA substitute consent, in two stages: a s.177C application for leave, decided on exceptional circumstances, and only then a s.177E application. The public had no say at the leave stage. | substantive One application for retrospective consent direct to the Commission. Exceptional circumstances becomes a merits condition, and any person may make submissions on whether they exist. The Commission must state its main reasons for being satisfied, may direct a cessation of operations pending determination backed by an offence, and may order remedial measures on refusal. ss.130 to 133 |
This appears to be a genuine new right. Exceptional circumstances would become a contested issue on the public file rather than a question decided between the applicant and the Commission. The authority's report must also put the applicant's warning letters, enforcement notices and offence proceedings before the Commission (s.121(2)(b)), which is a document worth asking for. |
| Heritage and area declarations | s.57 declarations on protected structures, open to the owner or occupier only and not covering proposed protected structures or ACAs. In an area of special planning control, s.87(3) already allowed an owner or occupier to seek a declaration on what would be contrary to the scheme, which objectives applied, and the measures required to comply, within 12 weeks and with no appeal. Nothing at all for an ACA. s.87(3) | extended Three routes: s.310 on a protected structure, now reaching proposed protected structures, open to a person acting with the owner's consent, and able to settle the curtilage and which features in the grounds are protected; s.333 on an ACA, which is genuinely new; and s.338 in an area of special planning control, which restates s.87(3) but shortens the period to 8 weeks and adds an appeal to the Commission. s.310, s.333, s.338 |
On our reading the gain is not three new routes but two: the ACA declaration, and an appeal where s.87(3) gave none. The third real gain is s.310(1)(b): the extent of the curtilage has often been the contested question on a protected structure and there was no way to settle it in advance. The trap on all three: the request is DEEMED WITHDRAWN if the authority decides it lacks sufficient information, with no decision and nothing to appeal at authority level. s.87(3) had no such trap. Answer the information notice on time; the period is 12 weeks on s.310 and 2 weeks on s.333 and s.338. |
| Objecting to a local authority's own scheme | s.179 and Part VIII of the 2001 Regulations: prescribed classes advertised, submissions invited, chief executive's report, members decide. | substantive The baseline flips. Local authority development in its own functional area becomes EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT unless it requires EIA or AA, or falls within a class the Minister prescribes. But s.152(4): development that materially contravenes ANY development plan applicable to it SHALL NOT BE CARRIED OUT, with no override of any kind. s.152, s.153, s.159 |
s.152(4) is likely to be the strongest ground available against a council scheme, because establishing material contravention appears to be dispositive rather than raising a voting threshold, and the record of protected structures is part of the development plan. Two procedural points: the members must resolve within 6 weeks of the chief executive's report and failure to resolve is deemed approval; and where more than 100 people made submissions the authority need not notify them individually of the outcome, so the date should be diarised. The draft Local Authority Own Development Regulations 2026 (18 September, not yet made) prescribe the classes that must go through the s.153 public procedure: the article 80 list carried over, with the catch-all cost threshold raised from €126,000 to €750,000, so a council project between those figures outside the named classes would need no public notice at all. Four weeks on inspection and two further weeks for submissions stay; the notice must state the authority's EIA and AA screening determinations; the submission form carries the same format rules as an application submission, but no s.588 declaration is required, Chapter 6 being outside s.588. Note also that, on our reading, s.9(4) does not apply to council development, so its exemption would survive a protected structure or ACA impact; s.152(4) is the route. |
On our reading, these arrive when Part 4 commences for the whole existing stock of permissions, because s.188 deems a permission granted under the 2000 Act to be a permission under the 2024 Act. They do not depend on when the application was lodged.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Altering a permission | substantive s.146B of the 2000 Act reaches strategic infrastructure only. For an ordinary permission there has been no statutory route to alter, so a change means a fresh application, or s.42 for duration alone. ss.138 to 150 create a statutory route to alter an ordinary permission, including a condition, split into material and non-material alterations, plus s.138A on altering uncommenced apartment permissions. s.44B of the 2000 Act does not appear to be an answer: it has never been commenced, and its window would close on 23 July 2027 regardless, because s.44B(6)(a) runs from the passing of the 2025 Act. ss.138 to 150 |
| Fixing an omission in a permission | substantive The chief executive may authorise a member of staff to amend a permission to correct a clerical error, clarify its terms, facilitate its implementation or operation, or facilitate something reasonably regarded as contemplated by the permission but not expressly provided for, provided it is not a material alteration. s.277(4) applies it to permissions granted under the 2000 Act. On a compliance problem that turns on an omission rather than a change, this is likely to be cheaper and faster than either an argument about the condition or a fresh application. s.277 |
| Getting out of a section 47 agreement | substantive s.47 has no exit, and an occupancy agreement has been close to immovable. Once Part 4 commences, the owner, or a person deriving title under that owner, may apply for discharge or modification 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.257(13) deems existing s.47 and 1963 Act agreements to be s.257 agreements, so the route appears to apply to old agreements. This is likely to be a real change for site purchase advice on a restricted permission. s.257(5), (7), (13) |
| Extending duration | unchanged until 17 October 2027 s.140(13) and (14) keep ss.42 and 43 of the 2000 Act alive for three years from the passing of the 2024 Act, for 2000 Act permissions, s.9 strategic housing development permissions, and any s.42 application already lodged. Commencement does not appear to touch this. Note separately that the s.42 window is now 2 years before expiry rather than one, by article 41 of the 2001 Regulations as amended by S.I. 330 of 2026, and see Circular PLR 03/2026. Under the new route at s.141 there is one extension only, the aggregate is capped at twice the original duration, and a s.42 extension counts against that cap. |
| Duration lost to a judicial review | available now, not once Part 4 commences s.180 commenced on 1 August 2025 and s.16 of the 2025 Act widened it the same day to 2000 Act and s.9 SHD permissions, retrospectively. Time a concluded review took off a live permission can be recovered on notice to the planning authority with a declaration that the development did not substantially commence. Works for maintenance, security or protection do not count as substantial commencement. It does not appear to revive a permission that has already expired, so on any file eroded by a review it is likely to be time critical. |
| Issue | Position | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial review | already moved on 12 August 2026 The new judicial review procedure took over for challenges to decisions under the old Act on 12 August 2026, seven weeks before the date this page is about (S.I. 414 of 2026, article 2(c), commencing s.303A and s.50AA). On our reading, the dividing line is the date the application was lodged, not the date of the decision, and it carries through to the appeal. That produces three groups running side by side:
The middle group is seven weeks wide, and in it the procedure and the costs regime come apart: under s.303A(3) those proceedings are not Part 9 proceedings for the purposes of the costs chapter, so they appear to run on the new procedure and the old costs rules in s.50B. |
||||||||||||
| Exempted development | the 2001 Regulations continue s.9 of the 2024 Act lists no exemptions at all. They are all to be prescribed, and the regulations have not been made. s.9(8) preserves what was exempt before commencement and s.627 carries the 2001 Regulations forward as if made under the corresponding provision, so they can then be amended article by article. The seven classes added on 27 July 2026 by S.I. 338 to 344 of 2026 continue. Until the new regulations appear, any statement about what will be exempt under the 2024 Act is a guess. |
||||||||||||
| Pre-application EIA screening | better under the existing route ss.176A to 176C of the 2000 Act have provided a pre-application screening application since 1 January 2019, with the determination due in 4 weeks, a 3-week referral to the Commission where the authority misses that period with the fee refunded, and a Commission determination in 5 weeks. s.231(6)(a) of the 2024 Act gives the competent authority 90 days. On timing the existing route appears much better, and the third-party right to challenge a screening determination already exists at s.176C(1); what commencement appears to bring is wider standing under ss.213(8) and 225(4), not a new right. |
||||||||||||
| The RED III renewable energy timelines | in force since 6 August 2025 ss.34D to 34H have been in force since S.I. 274 of 2025 and are untouched by this commencement. Note the separate date of 1 November 2026 for the mandatory EIA scoping switchover, deferred three times, and note that article 26A makes a s.34D(b) notice a hand-back rather than a pause: site notice removed, application and plans returned, fees returned to the applicant and to every submitter. Front-load a RED III application; it is unlikely to be fixable by further information. |
||||||||||||
| The submission period on an application | set by regulation; the draft regulations keep five weeks and add a six-week floor Neither the submission window nor the earliest date for a decision is in either Act. Under the 2000 Act both come from articles 29 and 30 of the 2001 Regulations, which are revoked on commencement by regulation 51 of the draft Planning and Development (Control of Development, Planning Authorities) Regulations 2026 (published 18 September 2026, not yet made). The draft keeps the period at five weeks from receipt (regulation 17) and provides that the authority shall not determine an application until six weeks from receipt have elapsed (regulation 18), so with the eight weeks in s.101 the decision window would be the last two. A late submission is returned with the fee (regulation 17(3), s.86(4)). A further information request may be made once only, on matters of technical or environmental detail not foreseeable at lodgement or on new matters raised in submissions (regulation 20). An application lodged before Part 4 commences should stay on articles 29 and 30 under s.626. | ||||||||||||
| Street furniture licences and the outdoor dining fee | the 2001 scale carries over; the fee waiver ends Licences for tables and chairs, advertisement structures, hoardings and the rest move from s.254 of the 2000 Act to s.13 of the 2024 Act. The draft Planning and Development (Licensing on Public Roads) Regulations 2026 carry the 2001 list and fee scale over unchanged: tables and chairs €125 per table, advertisement structure €630, hoarding or scaffold €1,250. The fee waiver for outdoor dining under S.I. 367 of 2025 runs only to 30 September 2026 and the draft does not renew it, so unless a further instrument is made the fee returns from 1 October for every licence granted or renewed after that date. A licence already granted should run its term. Decisions are to be notified within five working days and published on the authority's website. |
First, the regulations under the 2024 Act are published in draft but not yet made. Seven instruments appeared on gov.ie on 18 September 2026 in the form to be signed, covering control of development by planning authorities, fees, local authority and State development, licensing, compensation and Part V exemption certificates. 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 were not among them. Until they are signed, the fees, forms and periods on this page are taken from the drafts and are marked as such.
Second, planning authorities and the Commission are likely to be running both regimes side by side for several years, and the early months of a new procedure are where mistakes tend to be made. That cuts both ways. A 2000 Act file is on familiar ground, but it is likely to be handled by staff whose attention is on the new Act.
The full side-by-side comparison of the 2000 Act and the 2024 Act, section by section, across applications, appeals, exemptions, environmental assessment, judicial review and enforcement.
Compare the Acts → TrackerEvery 2026 planning circular, statutory instrument and commencement order, with a line on what each does. This is where the commencement order for Part 4 will appear once it is signed.
Open the tracker → PracticeThis page compares provisions. The position on a real file turns on the site, the plan, the planning history and the client's timetable.
Discuss an instruction →Please note. General information only, not legal or planning advice. Much of this is new legislation that has not yet been tested and could be subject to challenge, amendment or further regulation. For a definitive answer on a particular property or application, engage with the relevant planning authority.
It has not yet commenced. The Department told the Act's Oversight Group on 22 September 2026 that it intended to commence the remaining provisions on 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 date is fixed only when the commencement order is made, so check the Irish Statute Book.
Section 626 of the 2024 Act indicates that the 2000 Act continues to apply to an application made before the repeal, and on our reading that carries through to the decision and any appeal. An application lodged on or after the day Part 4 commences would be under the 2024 Act. See which Act applies, and confirm with the planning authority for a particular file.
On our reading of section 626, yes: the 2000 Act continues to apply in relation to the application, and an appeal is in relation to it. An Coimisiún Pleanála is the body to confirm how it is treating a particular appeal.
Under section 34(5) of the 2000 Act, an authority that does not respond within 8 weeks is deemed to have agreed. Section 87 of the 2024 Act appears to reverse this, so that silence is not agreement and the developer would need to refer the matter to the Commission. Which rule applies is likely to depend on the Act the permission was granted under.
Section 99 appears to make it harder: a chief executive's proposal, a resolution of three quarters of the total membership of the council, and consistency with national and regional policy on the matters contravened. How councils and the courts apply it remains to be seen.
The 2024 Act appears to limit outline permission to developments of up to four houses, for applications lodged on or after the day Part 4 commences.
Section 188 of the 2024 Act appears to treat it as a permission under the 2024 Act, which would bring it within the new alteration route (sections 138 to 150). The 2000 Act route to extend duration (sections 42 and 43) appears to remain available until 17 October 2027 under section 140(14). The planning authority can confirm which route it will accept for a particular permission.
Section 627 of the 2024 Act appears to keep them in force as if made under the new Act until they are replaced. New regulations are in draft and may change this.
The 2024 Act appears to allow five weeks, rather than four, for appeals on applications lodged on or after the day Part 4 commences, and a third-party submission or appeal would need to carry a declaration under section 588. Check the Commission's current requirements before lodging.