On 18 September 2026, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage published a package of draft regulations intended to support commencement of the remaining provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2024.
One is the draft Planning and Development (Control of Development – Planning Authorities) Regulations 2026 (the “Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations move technical, environmental and programme risk towards the applicant and brings key decisions forward, from pre-application consultation to validation, public participation and permission extensions. Developers should read it as a design and delivery issue, not merely a procedural rewrite.
Further information is a controlled exception, not a rescue mechanism
Draft Regulation 20 is the provision most likely to affect live applications. A planning authority may request further information within eight weeks of receipt, or within twelve weeks where the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment report or Natura impact statement. The request may be made once. It is confined to technical or environmental detail that was unforeseen when the application was lodged, or to new matters raised through public participation.
For applications other than Large-Scale Residential Developments (“LRDs”), a further request after the response is limited to clarification of that response, screening of sub-threshold development for environmental impact assessment, and further information required for environmental impact assessment. The Draft Regulations expressly prevent a planning authority from requiring an LRD applicant who has complied with the request to provide further information or evidence. A foreseeable gap at lodgement is therefore a poor candidate for later repair.
That changes the economics of lodgement. The practice of lodging to meet a funding date, board approval or grid milestone and seeking to rely on further information as a safety valve becomes materially riskier. If an application contains a foreseeable deficiency that cannot be addressed within the draft regime, the practical exposure is refusal rather than a second chance.
The response deadlines reinforce the point. The Draft Regulations allow six months to respond, extendable by up to three months by agreement. For an LRD, the period is two months, extendable to six months where environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is involved. Those periods need to be built into funding, procurement and grid programmes rather than treated as administrative grace.
Validation can remain live after acknowledgement
Draft Regulation 15 invalidates an application where a requirement of the chapter has not been met, or where a newspaper or site notice is misleading or inadequate to inform the public. That is familiar in principle. The material change is that the validation risk does not end when the authority acknowledges receipt.
Following inspection of the land, the authority may invalidate the application notwithstanding an acknowledgement if the notice requirements were not met, the submitted information is substantially incorrect, or substantial information was omitted. The authority must notify the applicant, require removal of the site notice, return the fee and place the reference number on its website list of invalid applications.
That is a programme event, not a filing correction. It can unwind work after public notice, create re-lodgement cost and put an unsuccessful application into the public record. Validation should therefore be treated as a continuing workstream through the authority’s consideration of the application.
The notice timetable is unforgiving. Regulation 5 requires the newspaper and site notices to be given within the two weeks before the application is made, subject to the stated electronic-lodgement and public-holiday rules. Regulation 7(4) carries forward the yellow-background requirement for a later application concerning substantially the same land within six months of an earlier valid application. It is not a new concept, but it remains an easy way to invalidate a carefully prepared application.
Regulation 6 adds a mandatory newspaper-notice indication where the application relates to Renewable Energy Development. For energy projects, the designation will be visible to the public, prescribed bodies and anyone monitoring the authority’s notices. It should be checked against the project description at the outset, not added at the end of the lodgement process.
LRD consultation now requires a serious pre-lodgement package
Chapter 2 of the draft Regulations deals with LRD consultation under sections 90 and 91. A section 91 meeting request must, where appropriate, be accompanied by the extensive information listed in Regulation 4(4). This is a substantial technical package before the meeting. It brings design, infrastructure and environmental spend forward and makes the quality of the pre-application material more important to the later application strategy.
Regulation 4(5) allows the authority’s section 92 opinion to identify information beyond the Regulation 11 requirements that should accompany the application. Where the opinion says that the consultation material is not a reasonable basis for an application, Regulation 11(4)(b) requires a statement responding to the issues identified. The opinion is not a formal scoping decision, but it will be the practical reference point for the application package.
Two further LRD requirements are of relevance. Regulation 11(4)(a) requires confirmation from Uisce Éireann where the proposed development is to connect to a public water or wastewater network, confirming feasibility and network capacity. Regulation 9 requires the applicant to keep the complete application online from lodgement until eight weeks after the authority’s decision, and, if appealed, until eight weeks after the Commission’s decision. The publication obligation should be built into document control and investor communications.
Unconfirmed aspects: flexibility with a public price
Chapter 4 creates a statutory route where not all aspects of a development are likely to be confirmed when the application is lodged. Section 93 permits a meeting request and section 94(1) permits an opinion on whether the application can properly proceed before those aspects are confirmed. The Draft Regulations provide Form No. 10 for the meeting request and Form No. 11 for the opinion.
Under Regulation 28(2), an application accompanied by the section 94 opinion may satisfy the plans-and-particulars requirement by providing plans or particulars for each proposed approach to an unconfirmed aspect, or information defining the range within which that aspect will fall, in sufficient detail for the authority to decide the application.
This is useful where procurement or technology selection cannot be closed before lodgement, for example turbine selection, plant specification or tenant fit-out. It does not remove the need to describe the options or range with enough precision for the authority to assess the development and its effects.
The trade-off is public visibility. Regulation 28(3) requires the notices and the authority’s weekly lists to state that aspects are unconfirmed. If a condition is attached under section 98(2), Regulation 28(4) requires written notification of the actual particulars to the planning authority at least two weeks before the relevant part of the development begins. A range stated too narrowly may not accommodate procurement; a range stated too broadly may leave the adequacy of the assessment exposed.
Alterations and extensions need earlier diarying
Chapter 5 treats an alteration or extension of duration as an “alteration request” under section 140. Under Regulation 31, a request to alter a permission must include plans, drawings and maps meeting the relevant requirements of Regulation 12. Regulation 32 sets out the additional information for an extension request, including the expiry date, works proposed during the additional period, commencement date, any previous extension under the 2024 or 2000 Act, the additional duration sought subject to section 141(2), and the expected completion date.
Regulation 33 fixes the filing window for an extension: no earlier than one year before the permission expires. Section 141 adds substantive limits: an extension may be granted only once and cannot exceed the duration of the permission being extended. Every live permission should therefore have an expiry date, commencement status and one-year filing window recorded in the project programme.
The main risk is the materiality determination under section 140(7). Regulation 35 allows the authority to invite written submissions from specified persons or the public. If the request is determined to be material, Regulation 37 requires notice to the requester, a newspaper notice, a site notice in the prescribed form and a five-week period for third-party submissions.
A non-material alteration is the shorter administrative route. A material alteration brings public notice and participation into the process. Any developer relying on section 140 for a late design change should test materiality early, budget for the public route and avoid building a critical path around the shorter outcome.
Electronic filing depends on consent and document quality
Chapter 9 permits electronic submission only where the planning authority or the Commission consents. Where both the authority or Commission and the relevant party have consented, communications and notices between them must be electronic. The draft also requires electronic documents to be searchable and capable of legible reproduction on paper, while preserving the authority’s power to request a hard copy. Scanned EIAR volumes and image-only consultant PDFs will need a technical quality check before lodgement.
The interaction with Regulation 5 is relevant. Where a standard-development application is submitted electronically, the authority may issue correspondence electronically and the applicant must submit further correspondence electronically. Consent is therefore not just a convenient filing option; it sets the channel for the rest of the application. Authority-by-authority practice will matter until the process becomes routine.
Developer action points
Rebuild the pre-lodgement checklist on the basis that further information will not cure a foreseeable gap. For each technical, environmental and ownership item, record why the material is complete, what remains uncertain and whether that uncertainty falls within the limited Regulation 20 categories.
Audit every live permission for expiry, commencement and previous extensions. Diary the one-year window under Regulation 33 and identify any design change that may require a materiality assessment under section 140(7).
For projects with procurement lead times, test the unconfirmed-aspects route against the actual technology, design and assessment strategy before relying on it. The range must be sufficiently defined for the authority to decide the application and must be capable of being delivered through the later notification process.
Finally, track commencement and transitional provisions. The draft Planning Authorities instrument currently does not say how applications already in preparation or in train will be treated. That is an unresolved implementation point, not a basis for assuming that the existing regime will apply. It should be resolved before the regulations are made and addressed expressly in any submission.
For further information, please contact Jason Milne, Michelle Martin, or your usual William Fry contact.
