Part 4 commences on 30 September 2026. 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 30 September 2026. The Department confirmed it to practitioners at the start of September. The commencement order itself had not been signed when this page was written, so there is no statutory instrument number to cite yet. We add instruments to the circulars tracker as they are signed.
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.
Commencement does not convert files already in the system. Which Act governs an application is fixed by the date it was lodged, and it stays fixed through to appeal.
An application lodged on or before 29 September 2026 is decided under the old Act, and appealed under the old Act, however long that takes. An application lodged on or after 30 September is a new Act application from the start. Nothing 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 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 follows the application. An appeal lodged after 30 September against a decision on an earlier application is still 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 do 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 is how the new powers to alter and amend a permission reach the existing stock.
The practical result is that planning authorities and the Commission will be running two regimes alongside each other for several years, and the first question on any file will 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 do commence on 30 September, 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 on 30 September: the thresholds move from "more than" to "not less than", so a scheme of exactly 10 units or exactly 1,000 m² is 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, has no successor. And the applicant's entitlement under section 247(1A)(b) to one extension of the four weeks on request is not 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 on 30 September is the zone exclusion. LRD is currently confined to land outside a strategic development zone. From 30 September 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 ceases to be LRD, and the LRD process no longer applies 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 30 September; 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 has a long reach, for two reasons. The consequence of the authority not responding moves from the authority to the developer. And it operates after grant, on every compliance submission for the life of the permission, so a permission granted on a pre-30 September application carries the old default for years. Establish which Act a permission issued under before advising, because the answer is 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 has no deemed outcome, and falls to be determined within the general 18 weeks in s.361. |
| Getting the permission | |||
| 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 a hard number on a divided council, and it is a different arithmetic from three quarters of those in the room. The consistency test is a substantive hurdle that a scheme contravening a density or height objective may simply fail on its own terms. On appeal s.110 is narrower still: default refusal and only three gateways, strategic or national importance, conflicting or ambiguous plan objectives, or national policy consistency. A national policy citation is no longer decorative. |
| 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 is unaffected: s.96(10) deems it an outline permission under the new Act whatever its size, and 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 is the most useful thing in Part 4. Decide the duration before lodging, because it goes in the public notice and cannot be 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 is the evidence answering the s.86(3)(f) duty to consider the likelihood of completion. |
| Demolishing a protected structure | Controlled through the s.57 declaration, the s.58 duty not to endanger and ordinary planning judgement. No statutory bar and no threshold. | substantive "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 |
A statutory test where there was previously only policy, and it sits above everything else in Part 4, including the material contravention route and any SPPR. "Involve or require" catches partial demolition, and catches a scheme whose delivery requires demolition even where the demolition is not what is applied for. "Exceptional circumstances" is undefined for this purpose, so the first decisions will set the standard. 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 pushes 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 changes site purchase advice. Every historic occupancy, open space or use restriction becomes a bar to a fresh permission that would breach it, and "likely to occasion" reaches indirect breaches. The sequence is now: 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 applies as well. |
| A second application while an appeal runs | Nothing prevents it. A developer facing a third-party appeal can lodge a revised, less objectionable application in parallel, so that losing the appeal does not mean starting from nothing. | substantive No application for permission for the same development may be made while an appeal is running, and the authority shall refuse to consider one. Either side may refer a dispute about "the same development" to the Commission. s.176 |
The parallel fallback application is gone for the same development. "The same development" is undefined, so a genuinely different scheme on the same site is not caught, and 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, 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 still decide and refund the fee, with a deemed grant if still 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 still valid. s.101 |
What remained of the deemed grant after 2010 goes entirely. s.101(5)(c) is a live trap: 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 is wrong to say deemed grants are being abolished across the board. |
| 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) |
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 survives, 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 is a complete Part V exemption which does not exist under the 2000 Act. The s.254 certificate is also 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 is 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 disappears, 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-30 September 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 onshore solar is never 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 bites 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 defence is 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 outside the judicial review procedure entirely, with no leave stage and none of the Part 9 standing or costs rules. A clean corporate vehicle does not by itself 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. A neighbour cannot request a declaration. s.10 |
A neighbour who wants a ruling on works next door is 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. An objector cannot raise it in a submission or in court. s.85(3), (4) |
A ground that has been available since 2000 closes entirely. Any objection that would have relied on it needs to be rebuilt 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 an ordinary appeal the window closes 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 carries 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 also destroys standing to challenge the decision. Treat the closing date as absolute on every file. |
| 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 Every limiting word is gone. 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 replaces a bad-faith test. An appeal that re-runs points already decided falls 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 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 you will need is visibly inside them, because the scoping direction will be built on the written case. A point not apparent from the grounds may never 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 |
A genuine new right. Exceptional circumstances is now 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. Nothing at all for an architectural conservation area or an area of special planning control. | substantive Three routes: s.310 on a protected structure, now open to anyone 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; and s.338 in an area of special planning control. s.310, s.333, s.338 |
The extent of the curtilage has always been the contested question on a protected structure and there was no way to settle it in advance. Now there is. 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. 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 the strongest ground available against a council scheme, because establishing material contravention is dispositive rather than merely 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 diary it yourself. Note also that s.9(4) does not apply to council development, so its exemption survives a protected structure or ACA impact; s.152(4) is the route. |
These arrive on 30 September 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 is not an answer: it has never been commenced, and its window closes 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 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. From 30 September 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 still secures any practical benefit. s.257(13) deems existing s.47 and 1963 Act agreements to be s.257 agreements, so the route applies to old agreements. 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 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 from 30 September 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 cannot revive a permission that has already expired, so on any file eroded by a review it is 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). 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 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 is much better, and the third-party right to challenge a screening determination already exists at s.176C(1); what commencement brings 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 cannot be fixed by further information. |
||||||||||||
| The submission period on an application | set by regulation, not by either Act Neither the five-week submission window nor the bar on deciding before it closes is in either Act. Both come from articles 29 and 30 of the 2001 Regulations, which survive commencement under s.627 and can be amended afterwards, article by article, by a short instrument. So a change to either can come at any time and is not tied to 30 September. The two articles currently coincide at five weeks and are often spoken of as one period, but they are separate: article 29 sets the period for making a submission, article 30 sets the earliest date the authority may decide. If one is amended and the other is not, the date by which a submission must be lodged may be unchanged. |
First, the regulations under the 2024 Act have not been made. Fees, forms, notice periods, prescribed bodies and the exempted development classes all live in them. For a period after commencement the procedure will be untested and the forms unpublished, and that is a practical consideration independent of the merits of either Act.
Second, planning authorities and the Commission will be running both regimes side by side for several years, and the early months of a new procedure are where mistakes get made. That cuts both ways. A 2000 Act file is on familiar ground, but it will 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 30 September 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.
Get in touch →