After almost a quarter of a century working across the built environment and a decade in placemaking— including creating a platform for engagement (https://placeengage.com/) — I returned to university (University of Galway) full-time to undertake a Masters in Planning & Development. My day job of supporting both public and private sector project owners with statutory and non-statutory public consultation and community engagement was feeling less and less effective in the face of stalled projects, increased NIMBY-ism, rising judicial reviews, and distorted development narratives (‘us vs. them’). The traditional town hall simply isn’t working anymore; those who engaged could not be said to be truly reflective or representative of the whole community. In the midst of a chronic housing crisis, meaningful public participation in planning has never been more urgent — nor more complex. Planning is a public function, however, despite Ireland’s strong democratic traditions, public consultation in spatial planning remains a process too often defined by minimal compliance, limited innovation, and a persistent ‘loud minority and silent majority’ dynamic.
Alongside the many years of practice, my academic research explored how technology can be effectively leveraged to enhance public engagement and community involvement in spatial planning and development processes in Ireland. The study combined national quantitative surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews with experienced public sector planners, offering a rare perspective on the current realities of participation within the Irish planning system by those tasked with upholding it.
The research sought to answer a deceptively simple question: How can Ireland’s planning system evolve to deliver more inclusive, representative, and effective community participation — particularly in a digital age? To do so, I delved into the attitudes of planners, the effectiveness of current engagement tools, the challenges faced in adopting technology, and the wider cultural, legislative and organisational factors influencing outcomes.
While the findings highlight encouraging examples of innovation, they also reveal systematic gaps: insufficient training, uneven leadership support (wilful ignorance is a phenomenon explored more deeply in the academic literature), under-resourced engagement strategies, and a lack of strategic evaluation. Critically, they expose a widening disconnect between the rhetoric of participation and the realities of practice.
What follows is a summary of the headline findings; further data is available upon request, email carol@caroltallon.com. It is presented for the benefit of Ireland’s planning and placemaking professionals and might well be considered to be a call for the sector to re-think not just the tools we use to engage, but the principles and people behind them.
The Current State of Engagement: Widespread Effort, Limited Impact
Irish planners are not lacking in engagement activity. In fact, 79% of local authorities still run in-person meetings, 71% use social media, and 67% run online surveys. Community workshops are also widely used (75%).
Yet the return on this activity is limited. Just 37% of public sector planners surveyed believe their current methods are “very” or “extremely” effective. Most rate citizen participation as either “moderate” (42%) or “low” (33%).
This gap between effort and effectiveness points to a deeper issue: despite widespread adoption of digital methods (with 79% of planning departments using online participation tools), the fundamental structures, skills, and values underpinning engagement have not kept pace with public expectations.
“You have to be able to say… it’s a real one”
Among the most powerful findings of the research are the voices of planners themselves. In a series of in-depth interviews, public sector professionals shared candid insights about the challenges they experience in engaging communities, and where potential opportunities may exist.
“You have to be able to say to people that, if you get involved in this consultation, it’s a real one. And you’ll be listened to,” reflected one planner with four decades of experience.
And yet, many respondents pointed to a disconnect between their aspirations for meaningful participation and the realities of their role:
“I work in a silo… there’s no communication. Councillors don’t speak to us. There’s no communication.”
– Assistant Planner, Urban Local Authority
Several interviewees described how this misalignment between community needs, institutional priorities, and the evolving role and reputation of planners, has contributed to a creeping sense of professional isolation and lack of professional pride.
Statutory vs. Non-Statutory: A System Divided
The research identifies a clear divergence between statutory consultation and non-statutory community engagement. The former, planners suggest, is bound by tight timelines and rigid procedures. The latter offers more flexibility — but suffers from a lack of funding, policy support, and recognition.
One Executive Planner explained:
“Statutory is hard because of the timelines… Non-statutory is probably done a bit better, because it gives you allowance to do some experimentation.”
Yet this experimentation is uneven. Only 44% of local authorities reported following a recognised policy framework for non-statutory engagement, such as the Aarhus Convention or the New European Bauhaus.
The result? A patchwork of practice, where innovation relies more on individual initiative than institutional strategy.
Technology as a Tool, Not a Solution
The good news: Irish planning departments are embracing digital tools. A significant 87% of planners see digital methods as moderately to extremely important, and two-thirds believe new technologies have had a “significant” or “transformational” impact on engagement.
The less good news? This enthusiasm is not yet translating into consistent, inclusive outcomes. Budget constraints (58%), digital access barriers (54%), and technical limitations (50%) are holding back progress.
And despite new platforms and tools like Place Engage (https://placeengage.com/), many planners still rely on self-taught skills or informal resources, including LinkedIn articles. Only 29% had received any CPD training in public consultation or engagement — digital or otherwise.
That said, innovation is underway. Interviewees described experimenting with:
- Digital twins and interactive 3D visualisations
(“You can have a member of the public stand there and move things around…”) - Voice recognition tools for less tech-savvy participants
(“We could record what they were going to say…”) - AI summaries of lengthy public submissions
(“So you’re not looking at 900 words — maybe just 200…”) - GIS-linked portals with full planning documentation
(“You click and see everything — scanned or digital.”)
This creativity is promising — but it’s often isolated. A more coordinated national strategy is needed to support digital transformation across the system.
Inclusive Engagement: Reaching the Voices We Don’t Hear
One of the most consistent themes in both the qualitative and quantitative data was the challenge of ensuring inclusive engagement.
“Barriers to participation? Poverty. People who are dying on their feet, using all their energy to survive… They don’t have the space to think about local development.”
– Senior Planner, Rural Local Authority
Other barriers include language, literacy, lack of public understanding, and the increasingly technical language of planning documents.
Interestingly, planners were also highly reflective about which communities they might be missing:
“What it also makes us aware of is, who’s not there? Who’s not being considered? How do we encourage them to get involved?”
Many spoke about the need for neutral, multi-generational community spaces — places where people could engage without feeling “burdened” or “out of place.” Others referenced successful partnerships with schools, sports clubs, and older people’s groups to co-create plans and build trust over time.
This echoes international best practice and affirms that engagement is not just about message delivery within specified timeframes — it’s about ongoing relationship building.
Leadership and Culture: The Hidden Barrier
Technology can only go so far without the right leadership and institutional culture to support it.
Many planners described internal resistance from senior management or colleagues, with public participation seen as a “nuisance” rather than a core planning function. As one planner put it:
“There would have to be a cultural change in the planning authority… I don’t think that shift has happened yet.”
There was also criticism of the limited ambition of new planning legislation:
“The Planning and Development Bill doesn’t recognise that consultation has moved on since the 1963 Act. That’s a missed opportunity.”
For digital engagement to thrive, it must be underpinned by governance structures that value and invest in participation — and that treat planners as community connectors, not just technical administrators.
Closing the Feedback Loop
A final and significant gap identified is the lack of feedback mechanisms. While community feedback is the most common method of evaluation (63%), many planners admitted that no systematic follow-up happens after a project is complete.
One Executive Planner acknowledged:
“We have no mechanism to go back and ask: are you happy with this? Even if we do it internally, the public doesn’t know that we’ve reviewed anything.”
Without visible follow-through, communities are unlikely to feel their input matters. This risks disengagement and reinforces the belief that planning is “done to” communities, not “done with” them.
Rebuilding the Planning Ethos: Five Recommendations for Practitioners and Policymakers
- Re-position planning as a public service profession, reconnecting planners with the communities they serve through open, consistent engagement.
- Support a hybrid model of engagement that blends digital and face-to-face methods, making participation accessible to all.
- Invest in professional training at both undergraduate and CPD levels, including modules on inclusive engagement and digital tools.
- Adopt a national digital engagement strategy, rooted in the principles of the Aarhus Convention and New European Bauhaus.
- Mandate feedback and evaluation loops as part of all consultation processes, closing the gap between public input and visible impact.
Achieving the Common Good: From Paperwork to People and Places
Ireland’s planning profession is at a turning point. The new Planning & Development Act 2024 (https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-housing-local-government-and-heritage/campaigns/planning-and-development-act-2024/) is working its way through a programme of implementation. While it, regrettably, does not go far enough in the area of public consultation and community engagement, Covid19 workarounds did much of the heavy lifting in moving us towards digital engagement. As the above research demonstrates, the potential is clear and the tools exist. Progress will not be made through technology alone, but through national and local government leadership, investment, and a renewed commitment to citizen engagement as a core pillar of planning.
Because ultimately, meaningful planning is not about paperwork. It’s about people and places. With that front and centre, the research findings pointed towards a potential framework— the People & Places Engage framework— which I encourage planning to test at a project level and provide feedback so that we can shape this into a useful framework for the sector.
*View the ‘People & Places Engage’ framework at https://caroltallon.com/the-people-places-engage-framework/
Download the Place Engage Engagement Landscape below: