The changes to the planning act for applications, outline permission, altering a permission, duration, appeals, exemptions, 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, is the one still to come, and it brings the alteration procedure, the four-unit limit on outline permission, mandatory timelines for An Coimisiún Pleanála, and a narrower material contravention route with it.
Commencement orders S.I. 662/2024, 239, 256, 379, 452 and 633 of 2025, and 194/2026.
The Department told practitioners at a briefing on 2 September 2026 that the remaining provisions commence at the end of September 2026. As of 15 September no commencement order for Block C has been made, and the Department's commencement schedule is the record. Regulations under the 2024 Act have not yet been published.
The Act repeals the 2000 Act but carries most of what was done under it across. These are the rules that matter if you have something 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 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 you lodge | |||
| Pre-application consultation | Optional under s.247. Mandatory only for large-scale residential development (LRD) through the s.32B meeting and s.32D opinion. | substantive Mandatory for 10 or more houses, 200 or more student bed spaces, or 1,000 m² or more of non-residential floorspace. Optional for everything else. The LRD meeting and opinion are retained. As amended by the 2026 Act, the duty is met by requesting the consultation or attending at least one meeting, and the authority must hold the meeting within 4 weeks of a valid request. s.89, s.90, ss.91 to 92; 2026 Act ss.37, 38 |
A ten-house scheme cannot be lodged without a consultation. An application that skips a mandatory consultation is invalid, and the Commission must declare it so if it reaches appeal (s.103(4)(b)). The 4-week meeting clock is new, and so is the remedy: if the authority does not hold the meeting in time, a non-LRD applicant may simply go ahead and lodge (s.90(4)). Consultation cannot be used to stall an ordinary application. For an LRD it can, so the authority must instead convene as soon as practicable and explain the delay in writing. A s.247 written confirmation that consultation was not required carries over as a s.90 certificate. |
| Elements not yet confirmed | s.32I allowed an application to proceed where some elements of an LRD were not confirmed. | procedural Generalised: a request for a meeting and an opinion where elements will not be confirmed by the date of the application, with a mandatory condition on any grant. ss.93, 94, s.98 |
Useful for phased or utility-dependent schemes. Expect the condition to be strict about what must be settled before commencement. |
| 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. 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. It is now closed. The documents, notices and fees come from the regulations, which are not yet made. |
| The applicant's track record | s.35 allowed refusal for past failures to comply, on a narrow basis, with an appeal to the Board. | substantive Two provisions. For 10 or more housing units, the authority must have regard to the residential development record of the applicant and of anyone connected with the applicant over the preceding 5 years, and to whether the scheme is likely to be completed within the permission (s.86(3)(f)). Separately, 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. 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 there is no appeal to the Commission against a refusal under s.173. The only remedy 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 does not by itself 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) |
"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 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 Still 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 continues to apply until new regulations replace the 2001 Regulations. 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 survive, and a change to either comes by a short amending instrument, not on commencement of Part 4. Do 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. Note what that does: the authority's working window between the close of the objection period and its own deadline narrows from three weeks to two. Expect more further information requests, since a request resets the clock, and expect heavier use of the s.101 consent-to-extend machinery. 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 is unchanged, and treating the two as one number is how a deadline gets missed. 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. Failure to decide is a deemed grant (s.34(8)), which in practice never happens because authorities decide late rather than not at all. | 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 still misses: fees repaid plus a payment of three times the fee, capped at €10,000. A late decision is not invalid. s.101 |
The deemed grant is gone. 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 will not 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) is the test to cite against a community gain condition that is out of proportion to the scheme. |
| Compliance and points of detail | No statutory clock at all. A compliance submission could sit with the authority indefinitely, and often did. | substantive Where a condition requires points of detail to be agreed, the authority has 8 weeks from submission, or longer if agreed in writing, to agree, to say in writing that agreement cannot be reached, or to refer the matter to the Commission. If it says agreement cannot be reached, the developer may refer to the Commission within 4 weeks. s.87(9) to (13) |
Note the asymmetry, because it decides how you use the section. If nothing is agreed and no referral is made in time, the authority is deemed not to have agreed. But once the matter is with the Commission, if it has not determined it within 4 weeks after its own 8, the points of detail are deemed agreed. Silence by the authority defeats the developer; silence by the Commission favours him. 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 are now 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 is gone. The outline-then-full route is for 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) |
The clock starts at outline. A full permission granted three years into a five-year outline has 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, or a longer period the authority specifies under s.41. | procedural 5 years, but the applicant may ask for a different period in the application and must say so in the public notice; the authority may set anything from 2 to 10 years, and more than 10 for Chapter 4 development. s.177 |
Decide the duration you need before lodging, because it goes in the notice. Two years is now possible for a short-lived use; ten for a phased scheme. |
| 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 where that case is made. Build in the amendment mechanism at s.178(4) rather than committing to dates that will 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 (application window closed January 2026). 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 |
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 has used its allowance and cannot 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 the 2025 Act to 2000 Act permissions, including retrospectively where the holder declares the development did not substantially commence during the proceedings. s.180 |
If a permission you hold was ever under review, the time may be recoverable. Check before treating it as expired. |
| Apartment standards modification | s.44B, inserted by 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 appeal. Applications until July 2027. | carried over Sits in the 2000 Act and is not repeated in the 2024 Act. It is time-limited by its own terms. |
Only where the development has not commenced and neither AA nor EIA arises. For anything else, the Chapter 5 alteration route below. |
This is the change most practitioners will 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 qualifies (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. The compliance record of the whole development counts, not just 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. Three things can never 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 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 |
Still 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 still bind. 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 appeal. This is the statutory version of the 2025 apartment standards, and it is 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. |
| 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 you cannot 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) |
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 |
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, nobody can 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 |
A neighbour can no longer use s.5 to test someone else's works. What is left to them is a written complaint to the enforcement authority, which is covered under Enforcement below. s.10(2)(c) is the way to have an authority confirm that a condition, typically "in accordance with plans", does not preclude a change you want to make. |
| 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 simply 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 applies 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 | Governed by policy and the s.57 declaration machinery. No express statutory bar in the consent sections. | substantive 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. s.170 |
A statutory test where there was previously only policy. It applies notwithstanding any other provision of the Act, so it cannot be traded off against the merits of a replacement scheme. |
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 you apply | 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 |
The most useful new tool in the Part. For a marginal sub-threshold scheme, a quarry extension or a solar farm, it turns 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 might still be argued about. | 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) |
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 sits above this floor and does 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 |
Not a refusal. A deemed withdrawal, which leaves 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 is 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. No other class of development 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 tells you anything about their merit, because nothing has been filtered yet. |
| 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 is 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 follows. |
| 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 the part that bites. An informal committee cannot satisfy this, and every supporter ends 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 the main piece of good news in the Part for a permission holder. The authority can 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 s.50B and the 2011 Act still 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 matters 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 matters 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 merely because a permission application or a s.10 declaration request has been made. s.351 |
Notably 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 is no longer a net loss to a council. Expect more of it. |
Fees, forms, notice periods, the list of prescribed bodies and, above all, the exempted development classes all come from regulations under the 2024 Act that have not been published. The Department has said they are in preparation. Until they are made, statements about what will be exempt on day one are guesses, and this page does not make them. It will be updated the day the regulations appear.