Overcoming centralisation through collaborative planning: the case of Moycullen village, Ireland

Development in the Republic of Ireland (Ireland, hereafter) over the past three decades has been nothing if not eventful. Ireland’s claim to one of the highest growth economies in the European Union has been a rapid transformation, that few as recently as 1992 would have predicted (see O’Leary, 2001; Collins, 2007; Kitchin et al., 2012; Collins, 2021). As an independent state (Free State in 1922, Republic in 1949), it is young by many standards. Its first century can be divided into two distinct development phases, the first was insular and nationalist, the second was outward looking and globalist (Collins and Grimes, 2011; MacFeely, 2016).

While both phases produced notably different outcomes (economically and socially), a common theme, one that is the focus of this paper, persisted, the centralisation of administrative power in Ireland. Over the past century, as Ireland moved from insular nationalism to an increasingly globalised economy, power has remained concentrated within central government, a pattern that has profoundly influenced planning practices across the country. This centralised approach has fostered rapid national development, yet it has done so at the expense of local autonomy and citizen engagement, often sidelining community voices in the planning process. The result is a planning system that, while effective in some respects, has led to a growing public disillusionment, with many communities feeling excluded from decisions that directly impact their lives and surroundings. Some contend that the spatial manifestation of the centralisation of power is evidenced in the sprawl of the country’s biggest cities and the dereliction of many of its rural towns (Brudell and Attuyer, 2014; Mahon, 2014; MacFeely, 2016). In this paper, we seek to highlight the nature of this centralisation and the role it has played in increased disaffection with local planning practice in Ireland.

This paper seeks to examine the implications of Ireland’s centralised planning model on local engagement and participatory democracy, particularly in light of the increasing calls for collaborative, community-driven approaches. Ireland’s planning framework, managed predominantly from Dublin, frequently overlooks the nuanced priorities of smaller towns and rural communities, where the impact of centralised decisions can be most keenly felt. While recent legislative reforms have introduced elements of strategic planning and coordination, these have largely upheld the existing structures of centralisation, offering little in terms of substantial local empowerment. Against this backdrop, this study explores the possibility for collaborative planning as an alternative pathway, while being cognisant of the neo-Gramscian critiques of participatory approaches. The use of the case study is to investigate how to exert real influence over local decision-making, particularly in the face of economic and political pressures that continue to shape planning outcomes in modern Ireland.

The Moycullen Village Plan, a grassroots initiative developed in a rural village in County Galway, offers a pertinent case study through which to explore these issues. Unconnected to statutory requirements, the plan represents a community-led response to the challenges posed by Ireland’s top-down planning model. This case study demonstrates how collaborative planning methods − centred on local priorities and participatory decision-making − can provide communities with a sense of ownership over their development. For clarity, the author was part of the research team that delivered the plan. In presenting the Moycullen Village Plan, this paper aims to highlight the potential for such initiatives to inspire a reimagining of Ireland’s planning practices, bridging the divide between policy and public interest.

With the increased subscription to the global neoliberal model, a growing chorus of concern has emerged over worries that planning systems have recalibrated to favour private economic actors through neoliberal inspired policies that reduce genuine participation and debate (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2012; Falleth and Saglie, 2011; Waterhout et al., 2013; Lennon and Waldron, 2019). Arguably, it is through the planning systems that we truly experience what Brenner and Theodore term “actually existing neoliberalism”. Previous contributions on the Irish planning system (Laffan, 1996; Forde, 2005; Lawton and Murphy, 2011; Breathnach, 2010; Fox-Rogers et al., 2011; Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2014; Kitchin et al., 2012; Mahon, 2014; Grist, 2016; MacLaran et al., 2013; Lennon and Scott, 2015; MacFeely, 2016; Moore-Cherry and Tomaney, 2019; Lennon and Waldron, 2019; Williams and Nedović-Budić, 2020) have provided some interesting insights on the role of private capital, clientelism, power, lack of autonomy, increased managerialism in planning in Ireland. The country’s pursuit of a neoliberal development model in the form of pro-business tax incentivised development has arguably seeped from the economic and commercial sphere to the planning, spatial and social one (see Collins et al., 2021). In all of this, we see how market-led approaches alongside increased managerialism serve to marginalise the scope for democratic opposition.

In some part a response to proliferation of private interests benefiting from the entrepreneurial approach to planning (see Logan and Molotch, 1986), attempts at wresting control from capital interests can be seen in what has been termed a communicative planning approach imbued with the ideas of deliberative democracy. Based on the Habermasian ideals of openness and truth seeking, communicative planning seeks an enlargement of egalitarian values, through consideration of a wider range of human and natural communities (beyond capital interests) (see Sager, 2009). The next section traces the evolution of planning in Ireland and describes a unique combination of centralisation, clientelism and pro-market approaches (see Figure 1). The Irish planning system reflects a unique combination of centralisation and neoliberal influences, resulting in a planning model that often excludes local perspectives. To contextualise the Moycullen Village Plan within broader theoretical debates, this section explores the historical roots of centralisation in Irish planning, the principles of collaborative and communicative planning and the challenges associated with implementing such models in a neoliberal context.

Centralisation has long been a defining feature of Irish governance, tracing back to British colonial rule, where power was concentrated in central institutions and local governance structures were limited. From Figure 1, we can see that upon gaining independence in 1922, Ireland inherited a centralised administrative model, which subsequent governments retained and expanded. This centralisation persisted across major policy shifts, with decision-making authority remaining highly concentrated within Dublin-based ministries and agencies. Scholars like Breathnach (2010) argue that this has left rural and local communities sidelined, with limited control over decisions that directly affect their socio-economic landscapes. Even as Ireland embraced neoliberal policies from the 1960s onward, the fundamental structure of centralisation was retained, shaping the spatial and economic dimensions of planning.

The Irish planning system today is characterised by a hierarchical framework that places central government in control of most aspects of spatial planning. Local authorities, while theoretically responsible for development plans, are bound by national policies and strategic frameworks that dictate the overarching priorities for growth and land use. As Knapp et al. (2015) point out, this approach leans heavily on land-use planning as a tool for enforcing centralised objectives, which are often economic in nature. The 2018 National Planning Framework exemplifies this model, as it sets out a nationwide vision for development with limited mechanisms for adapting these policies to local needs (Department of the Environment, 2018). The result, critics argue, is a system where planning decisions often feel remote to communities, reinforcing a sense of disenfranchisement among local populations.

Ireland’s centralised approach to planning has also contributed to notable spatial imbalances, with urban centres, especially Dublin, receiving a disproportionate share of resources and investment. Scott (2006) highlights the way that centralisation and neoliberal policies have driven a competitive ethos in planning, where localities are valued based on their ability to attract global capital. This “global interstitial competition” often prioritises urban growth at the expense of rural development, marginalising smaller communities and contributing to uneven regional development. Recent work exploring the urban planning context in Dublin has highlighted how the approach of central government in Ireland has led to the rise of an entrepreneurial local authority culture and resulted in “significant social costs” (MacLaran et al., 2013). Brudell and Attuyer (2014) go further and contend that participatory initiatives as part of city regeneration projects often serve to legitimise predetermined development agendas rather than empower local communities.

The case of Moycullen exemplifies this challenge, where the impact of centralised planning decisions is felt acutely, limiting the community’s capacity to influence changes that affect their village. Against this backdrop, the Moycullen Village Plan emerges as a response to these limitations, representing an attempt to reclaim some degree of local agency within a heavily centralised system.

The limitations of centralised planning have spurred interest in alternative approaches that prioritise local engagement and democratic participation, such as collaborative and communicative planning. Central to these models is the work of Jürgen Habermas on deliberative democracy, which posits that democratic legitimacy is best achieved through open, rational discourse among all stakeholders (Habermas, 1984). Collaborative planning, as advocated by Healey (2004), builds on this foundation, framing planning as a communicative process where diverse perspectives can be reconciled through reasoned dialogue. This model seeks to enable a more inclusive form of governance, where community voices play a significant role in shaping planning decisions, moving beyond the rigid, top-down systems that characterise centralised models.

In a similar light, Innes (2004) argues that collaborative planning should be viewed as a dynamic process that generates “authentic dialogue” among stakeholders. Innes highlights the importance of trust-building and mutual understanding, suggesting that genuine collaboration arises when participants feel respected and empowered to share their perspectives. This reflects a shift from merely consulting stakeholders to actively engaging them in shaping policy, which aligns closely with Healey’s notion of communicative planning as a means to democratise governance.

Furthermore, John Forester (1989) emphasises the role of planners as facilitators of dialogue, bridging the gap between diverse stakeholders. He advocates for “facilitative leadership”, where planners engage in active listening and create an environment that encourages honest, constructive discussions. In this context, planners become mediators rather than enforcers, a perspective that aligns with Dryzek’s (2000) view of deliberative democracy as a mechanism for handling complex, multi-stakeholder issues. Forester’s emphasis on facilitative leadership particularly underscores the potential of collaborative planning to address entrenched conflicts and power imbalances, making it relevant for communities that may feel marginalised in traditional planning structures.

Bent Flyvbjerg’s (2003) work on megaprojects further illuminates the challenges and complexities within collaborative planning, particularly regarding power dynamics. Flyvbjerg warns of the tendency for dominant interests to overshadow minority voices, even in ostensibly democratic settings. By analysing these dynamics, Flyvbjerg’s insights call for careful attention to power structures within collaborative planning processes, ensuring that all stakeholders − including those from marginalised rural communities − have an equitable voice.

He et al. (2024) examine the role of digital and social media platforms in contemporary collaborative planning. They argue that online forums offer new avenues for public engagement, providing an accessible platform for citizens who might not otherwise participate. This digital dimension adds a layer of flexibility and inclusivity to communicative planning models, allowing a broader range of voices to contribute to the planning process. New work in this area is particularly relevant in the context of rural Irish communities, where digital engagement might help bridge physical and social distances, fostering greater participation in planning processes.

The Moycullen Village Plan embodies collaborative ideals by centring on community participation and local knowledge. Through methods such as focus groups, collective mapping exercises, App development and in-depth interviews with stakeholders, the Moycullen initiative aimed to create a deliberative platform where residents could articulate their vision for the village’s future. This participatory process reflects Habermasian principles of transparency and inclusivity, enabling the community to actively engage with planning in ways that are seldom possible within the constraints of Ireland’s centralised framework. The Moycullen Plan thus not only offers a practical example of collaborative planning but also highlights the potential of such approaches to inspire a shift towards more inclusive planning models in Ireland.

Despite the appeal of collaborative planning, implementing it within neoliberal frameworks presents significant challenges. Critics like Swyngedouw (2009) argue that, within neoliberal contexts, collaborative processes are vulnerable to co-optation by powerful actors, who may use the guise of participation to legitimise predetermined outcomes. This form of “pseudo-participation” can dilute the democratic potential of collaborative planning, making it a tool for reinforcing rather than challenging established hierarchies. Purcell (2009) similarly warns that collaborative processes can unintentionally reproduce existing power dynamics, as stakeholders with greater resources or influence can dominate deliberations, sidelining less powerful community voices.

Hillier (2002) expands on this critique, noting that collaborative planning requires careful design to prevent power imbalances from distorting the process. Without mechanisms to ensure genuine inclusivity, collaborative models risk becoming spaces where dominant interests set the agenda, reducing the process to a symbolic exercise. In the Irish context, where planning has historically been shaped by clientelism and strong market interests (Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2014), these critiques are especially relevant. The alignment of planning objectives with economic efficiency often clashes with the slower, more consultative nature of collaborative planning, creating a tension between the participatory ideals of collaboration and the efficiency-driven imperatives of neoliberalism.

Flyvbjerg (1998) highlights the “dark side” of power in planning processes, where those in positions of authority can manipulate information or frame discussions to maintain control over outcomes. Flyvbjerg’s emphasis on realpolitik underscores that collaborative processes, while ostensibly democratic, may still operate within the boundaries set by powerful interests, potentially marginalising dissenting voices.

Innes and Booher (2004) also caution against assuming that consensus-driven processes are inherently equitable. They argue that striving for consensus can sometimes suppress disagreement or conflict, which are essential for genuinely democratic engagement. Collaborative planning, when overly focused on consensus, may sideline minority perspectives to achieve a harmonious but superficial agreement. Forester (2013) notes that collaboration in practice often struggles with what he terms the “burden of inclusivity”. As planners attempt to involve all relevant voices, the complexity of managing conflicting interests can stall decision-making or result in compromises that satisfy no one fully.

Critics also point out the limited institutional support for collaborative practices within neoliberal governance structures, which tend to prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term democratic engagement. As McGuirk (2001) notes, in such contexts, collaborative planning can become a tokenistic exercise, where public consultations are more about appeasing community expectations than genuinely integrating public input. In Ireland, where economic agendas often dominate planning processes, this critique highlights the structural obstacles to implementing genuinely participatory practices.

Wargent (2020) and O’Hare (2018) point out that participatory planning often operates within a framework of “localism without power”, where communities are encouraged to take responsibility for development outcomes but lack the necessary autonomy to shape fundamental policy directions (Wargent, 2020; O’Hare, 2018). In his empirical examination of advocacy planning, Sager (2022) argues that while such approaches may empower marginalised communities in theory, they often rely on intermediary actors who ultimately shape the discourse and limit the scope of dissent (Sager, 2022). Together these works infer that regeneration partnerships, while ostensibly participatory, frequently function under “shadows of hierarchy”, where centralised control persists despite the appearance of local agency (O’Hare, 2018). This aligns with Swyngedouw’s (2009) concept of “post-political governance”, in which participatory mechanisms are used to manage and depoliticise conflict rather than genuinely redistribute power (Swyngedouw, 2009).

This has been highlighted in recent work relating to regeneration in the urban context in Ireland. The country’s neoliberal governance structures indicate that participatory planning has been co-opted to facilitate urban development agendas rather than empower local communities. For MacLaran et al. (2013), regeneration projects are framed as participatory yet ultimately serve capital accumulation strategies. This underscores the broader challenge of ensuring community engagement mechanisms genuinely serve public interests rather than being instruments of governance control.

The Neo-Gramscian perspective on urban governance (Davies, 2024) reinforces this point, arguing that participatory planning initiatives often function as instruments of hegemony, reinforcing neoliberal agendas under the guise of democratic engagement. This perspective suggests that rather than resisting state power, many participatory mechanisms serve to legitimise pre-existing neoliberal trajectories, maintaining the dominance of market-driven governance over local decision-making.

Taken together, these critiques underscore that while collaborative planning offers a promising alternative to centralised models, its effectiveness is contingent on the broader political and economic environment. In neoliberal frameworks, where efficiency and market-driven outcomes often take precedence, the risk of co-optation, power imbalances and tokenism in collaborative planning is heightened. For rural Irish communities, which may already feel disconnected from the planning process, these critiques serve as a reminder that without careful attention to power dynamics and inclusivity, collaborative planning can fall short of its democratic ideals.

The Moycullen Village Plan thus serves as both a test case and a cautionary tale for collaborative planning within a neoliberal framework. While it demonstrates the potential for localised, community-driven planning, it also highlights the limitations of such approaches when faced with systemic constraints. In a context where centralised, market-led objectives dominate, Moycullen’s experience underscores the need for robust frameworks to protect and empower local voices within collaborative processes. By situating Moycullen within these broader critiques, this study sheds light on both the promise and the pitfalls of pursuing participatory planning in a system shaped by neoliberal logic.

Over the course of seven months (mid July 2019 to early 2020), the village of Moycullen underwent its largest ever public consultation. Initial goals set out by the project targeted 20% of the population (300), by the end, over 800 residents took an active part, online reach was in excess of 5,000 and the report itself has been downloaded over 2,000 times. The Village Plan used a mixed-methods approach to explore the potential of community-driven planning in a centralised context, using Moycullen Village as a case study. The choice of Moycullen was deliberate, reflecting the village’s demographic profile, active community groups and proximity to the University of Galway (see Figure 2). Located in County Galway, a region affected by the limitations of centralised planning, Moycullen provides a pertinent setting to examine how localised approaches might counterbalance the broader structural challenges within the Irish planning system. By combining interviews, focus groups, collective mapping exercises and survey methods, this study sought to capture a comprehensive picture of community perspectives on local development.

Participant selection was designed to ensure broad representation from various community sectors. Key stakeholders were identified in consultation with the Moycullen Community Development Association (MCDA) and Galway County Council (the Local Authority) elected representatives. This included business owners, political representatives, small-scale entrepreneurs, community members and local artists, creating a balanced cross-section of the village’s social and economic landscape. The snowball sampling technique, as described by Noy (2008), was used to expand the pool, enabling participants to recommend additional interviewees, which helped capture a wide range of perspectives. Thirty-two community members participated in semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately 70 min and following a standardised set of thematic questions.

The interviews covered four thematic areas: personal history and connection to the village, perceptions of Moycullen’s unique characteristics, visions for future development and views on realising these visions. The thematic framework provided consistency across interviews while allowing space for individual insights, enabling a detailed exploration of both shared and divergent perspectives within the community.

Following the interviews, a series of focus groups were organised, with participants grouped by themes identified during the initial consultation. The focus groups brought together residents with shared interests, such as school representatives, local businesses, sports groups, senior citizens and young parents, to discuss key issues in greater depth. The structure of these sessions was informed by best practices in social science research (Conradson, 2013) and designed to promote inclusivity and equal participation. Exercises within the focus groups included individual and group activities, facilitating both consensus-building and the expression of diverse views. Beyond the data gathering aspects of focus groups as a social science research method, researchers such as Goss (1996) consider focus groups as empowerment tools. Chui (2003) described them as cathartic experiences for participants, while Johnson (1996) sees them as tools for galvanising political action. For this reason, we considered the focus groups as important for instilling a sense of ownership in the future development of their place (see Hopkins, 2007).

A notable component of the methodology was the collective mapping exercise, aimed at engaging the “geographical imagination” of participants (Gregory et al., 2011). Participants were asked to map their visions for Moycullen’s future development on blank village maps, considering historical land use alongside aspirational ideas. This exercise, informed by Parker’s (2006) principles of community mapping, encouraged respondents to envision their village’s potential without being constrained by current land ownership or formal planning regulations. The resulting maps served as a cartographic basis for the Moycullen Village Plan, reflecting the collective aspirations of the community.

The Village Plan App was developed in conjunction with the School of Machines Making and Make-Believe in Berlin. Participants were encouraged to plan out a greenfield site to accommodate a population of 1,500 people. This was done by the placing of cards indicating different usage types (low to high density housing and infrastructure/services mixes) on a “greenfield board” (see Plate 1). The augmented reality application run on an iOS device allowed users to measure the sustainability of the village they had planned. Once chosen, the mix of housing and services was scanned by the App, giving users a 3D rendering of their village and scores according to environmental, commercial and social sustainability. As a focus group exercise, it was extremely valuable in encouraging users to think about the connectedness and relatedness in planning issues.

A systematic thematic analysis, following the approach outlined by Adriansen and Madsen (2009), was used to ensure a rigorous examination of the qualitative data collected. The analysis began with open coding, where transcriptions of interviews and focus group discussions were reviewed line-by-line to identify initial codes that reflected participants’ perspectives on key issues. This coding was conducted independently by two researchers to minimise bias and enhance the reliability of findings. The initial codes were then grouped into broader categories, capturing core concepts related to community values, environmental priorities and leadership.

Next, axial coding was applied to refine these categories into cohesive themes that aligned with the study’s overarching aims. Key themes − such as community cohesion, connectivity with Galway City and local leadership in planning − emerged across data sources, underscoring the consistency of these priorities among participants. By structuring the analysis around these themes, the study not only captured descriptive details but also provided a deeper understanding of the underlying motivations and aspirations within the community.

To ensure analytical depth, the themes were triangulated with survey results and findings from the collective mapping exercise. This multi-layered approach allowed the researchers to connect individual insights to broader community patterns, strengthening the interpretative validity of the findings. The thematic analysis thus moved beyond simple description, identifying patterns and relationships within the data that reflected Moycullen’s collective vision for development. Visual tools, such as word clouds and thematic maps, were used to illustrate these connections, making the insights accessible and actionable for community stakeholders.

Results of the analysis illustrate the priorities and concerns of Moycullen’s residents, captured through thematic analysis and triangulated across interviews, focus groups and collective mapping exercises. Three core themes emerged from the data: community cohesion, connectivity and local leadership. These themes reflect a shared vision for Moycullen’s future, grounded in the community’s desire for a cohesive, accessible and locally governed village.

The theme of community cohesion emerged as a defining characteristic of Moycullen, with nearly all participants emphasising the importance of community bonds in shaping the village’s identity. Many described the village as a place where “everyone knows everyone”, with social ties built through schools, sports and community events. The local Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) was frequently highlighted as a central institution fostering this cohesion. Participants linked these community bonds to Moycullen’s relatively small size and stable population, factors they felt contributed to a sense of shared identity. This focus on social connectedness suggests that preserving community ties is a core priority for residents, especially as Moycullen continues to grow.

The collective mapping exercises underscored this point, as participants consistently marked spaces they viewed as integral to the village’s social fabric, such as the GAA pitch, recreational areas and the school. In reference to the desire for physical infrastructure to support this ephemeral concept, one participant remarked, “Creating [physical] places for people to meet is crucial for keeping the village united as it grows”.

Beyond physical spaces, participants also emphasised the role of community-driven activities in strengthening social bonds. Ideas included establishing more regular events, such as farmers’ markets, workshops or seasonal festivals, to bring together residents of all ages and backgrounds. These activities were seen as ways to build connections across the village’s diverse demographic, bridging the gap between new residents and long-time inhabitants.

The theme of connectivity encompasses both the physical and social connections that Moycullen’s residents feel are lacking. Many residents commute to Galway City for work or education, and the absence of reliable transportation was a common frustration. Interviewees expressed concerns about limited bus services and the lack of safe, accessible cycling and walking routes. Focus groups similarly voiced the need for enhanced infrastructure, particularly the completion of the Connemara Greenway, which residents view as critical for safe and efficient travel between Moycullen and Galway.

Improved local connectivity was also a priority, especially as Moycullen’s population grows. Several residents noted that recent housing developments have brought new residents to the village, creating both opportunities and challenges for social integration. Survey responses called for the creation of more pedestrian-friendly routes and communal spaces that could encourage spontaneous interactions among neighbours, enhancing a sense of belonging.

In discussing connectivity, participants often linked it to broader environmental goals, viewing sustainable transportation options as essential for Moycullen’s future. The emphasis on cycleways (Connemara Greenway), pedestrian routes and public transportation highlights a growing awareness of environmental issues and reflects a desire for development that aligns with sustainable practices. As one participant noted, “Improving connectivity isn’t just about getting from point A to point B; it’s about creating a healthier, more sustainable village for everyone”. This sentiment is reinforced through the Village Plan App (Plate 1).

The theme of local leadership captures residents’ shared concern over the limited control they feel they have over their place’s future. Many interviewees expressed frustration with the lack of a unified, community-led voice in planning decisions, describing the current process as “fragmented” and “distant”. Participants repeatedly highlighted the absence of a clear mechanism through which local priorities could be represented in formal planning processes. Focus group discussions revealed strong support for a more formalised governance structure at the village level. Participants suggested creating a community council or similar body that could act as an advocate for Moycullen, ensuring that resident perspectives are considered in local planning matters. The Moycullen Village Plan itself was seen as an initial step towards this goal, demonstrating the potential for a locally-led initiative to provide direction and coherence in the absence of a formal governance structure.

The emphasis on local leadership also connects to the broader critique of centralisation that underpins this study. By advocating for a stronger, community-led governance model, Moycullen’s residents highlight the limitations of Ireland’s current planning framework. As one resident articulated, “Decisions are made for us, not with us”. The recommendations emerging from the Moycullen Village Plan, summarised in Figure 3, outline specific steps toward achieving this model, with proposals focusing on community, connectivity and collaboration. This sentiment underscores the community’s desire for a shift towards more inclusive, locally-responsive governance, suggesting that the Moycullen Village Plan could serve as a model for other rural communities seeking greater control over their development.

The overriding feeling among participants was that the workshops and methods used gave them their first opportunity to express their own wishes and desires regarding development in a semi-formal setting:

Over 87% of respondents had never previously been involved in any spatial planning exercises. Beyond positive reflections on the use of technology and “playing with maps” over one-third of respondents highlighted their surprise at “interconnected” nature of planning. While not directly referring to the concept by name, respondents were positively disposed to the sparking of the geographical imaginary. Use of traditional maps alongside a gamified cartography enabled a better spatial cognition of the interconnected nature of planning and development.

The Village Plan together with this reflection served to underscore the limitations of Ireland’s centralised planning framework and highlight the potential for community-driven models to address local needs more effectively. Moycullen’s residents expressed a strong desire for greater autonomy in shaping their village’s future, a sentiment that reflects broader critiques of centralised planning systems. As discussed above, Ireland’s planning structure is rooted in a history of centralisation that has often limited local participation (Breathnach, 2010; Kitchin et al., 2012; Collins, 2021). This legacy has created a system where decisions affecting communities are largely made in Dublin, aligning with Scott’s (2006) concept of “global interstitial competition”, where planning serves economic objectives rather than local needs. The call for local leadership in Moycullen resonates with these critiques, suggesting that community-led governance models could provide a more responsive alternative.

The findings also raise important questions around the themes of capture and autonomy in community governance. In centralised planning systems, local initiatives often risk being constrained by the “long arm of the state” and subject to mechanisms of capture that limit true autonomy (Williams et al., 2020). This dynamic is evident in the case of Moycullen, where the community’s aspirations for local leadership and connectivity are dependent on external funding and policy approvals, limiting their capacity to fully realise their vision. Moycullen’s experience highlights how community-led efforts, while valuable, may struggle to achieve true autonomy in a framework that prioritises centralised control, underlining the need for a planning model that recognises and supports local agency.

Key questions regarding the role of governmentality in shaping localism, as discussed by Clarke and Cochrane (2013) were also present. The push for community-driven planning in Moycullen can be seen as part of a broader discourse of localism, where state policies increasingly encourage local responsibility while retaining ultimate control. This “governmentality of localism” enables central authorities to delegate responsibilities without ceding genuine power, creating an environment where communities are encouraged to govern themselves but within limits defined by national priorities. Moycullen’s case reveals the tension inherent in this approach, where residents are empowered to articulate their needs yet constrained by a system that retains authority over the final decisions. This highlights the paradox of localism as it is often practised: while communities may be tasked with local governance, their actions remain bounded by centralised frameworks.

Obviously, there is a need to remain conscious of the shortfalls in any participatory approach. Further plans of this kind need to pay heed to studies on how collaborative approaches still function within a hegemonic structure that reproduce existing inequalities rather than addressing them. Studies on neoliberal urban governance in Ireland have shown how regeneration discourse is framed as participatory, yet remains closely tied to growth-oriented economic policies that prioritise property-led development (MacLaran et al., 2013; Brudell and Attuyer, 2014). This suggests that, while community actors may be involved in shaping local plans, their role is largely predefined within the constraints of a market-driven framework, ultimately serving to legitimise central policy objectives rather than fostering genuine bottom-up decision-making. These findings further reinforce the critiques of O’Hare (2018) and others that community organisations, while appearing autonomous, often function within pre-established spheres of capture, where their activities align with rather than challenge dominant governance models.

The village plan therefore highlights both the potential and limitations of collaborative planning, aligning with critiques such as those by Swyngedouw (2009) and Purcell (2009) on the risk of co-optation in participatory models. As Innes and Booher (2000) argue, collaboration can often be a “double-edged sword”, where well-intentioned processes are vulnerable to manipulation by dominant stakeholders. Moycullen’s experience underscores this critique, as participants expressed concerns about whether their input would genuinely influence planning decisions. While collaborative models like the Moycullen Village Plan create valuable spaces for dialogue, the study illustrates that without structural support to ensure these voices are acted upon, such processes risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative. This reflects Hillier’s (2002) caution that collaborative planning requires robust safeguards to protect against the reinforcement of existing hierarchies.

Finally, Moycullen’s emphasis on connectivity underscores the complex relationship between local priorities and national planning objectives. Residents’ call for improved transport and sustainable infrastructure reflects the limitations of a planning system where funding and project priorities are determined at a national level. Brenner and Theodore’s (2002) notion of “actually existing neoliberalism” is relevant here, as Ireland’s planning framework prioritises economic competitiveness over locally-driven initiatives. The call for enhanced connectivity in Moycullen reveals how community needs often clash with centralised, efficiency-driven policies, emphasising the need for a planning model that integrates social and ecological considerations alongside economic ones.

In sum, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on centralisation and localism in Irish planning, underscoring the importance of community autonomy within a supportive governance framework. The Moycullen Village Plan demonstrates how community-led approaches can offer a counterbalance to centralisation, aligning with Healey’s (2012) view that collaborative planning can “democratise” governance by involving stakeholders in meaningful ways. However, as the case of Moycullen illustrates, achieving this vision requires structural changes to support genuine autonomy and protect community voices from capture and co-optation. This study thus advocates for planning frameworks that support decentralisation while actively enabling communities to exercise control over their development.

The publication of the report coincided with the outbreak of a global pandemic and as a result, some momentum gained has been lost. However, some progress has been made. The adoption of the report by the Moycullen Community Development Association has proved fruitful. Indeed, the report itself provided impetus, as well as valuable statistical sources, for a number of funding applications. Perhaps the most important of these has been the securing of €400,000 for the purchase of a derelict building in the centre of the village (a former co-operative building built in the 19th century, known locally as the Co-op). The building was identified by participants as the oldest and most significant building in the small village with many residents bemoaning its vacant status. Together with the express desire for a community building and the identification of the central location for such a building in the collective mapping exercise. Funding has been secured from Rionn na Gaeltachta (the state body that supports Irish and funds development initiatives in the Gaeltacht region) and a proposal was drawn up from the village plan to include space for cultural expression (music and dancing rooms), public meeting space as well as an area set aside as a co-working hub.

The onset of COVID and the reluctance of the owner to sell inspired a different approach, two applications for Rural Regeneration Funding have been completed since 2021, one of which sought funding for a community sport/events centre for the village (€6m application was unsuccessful), the second application related to improving the public realm, footpaths and cycling infrastructure/connectivity to the proposed greenway. The first application was headed by the MCDA in direct consultation with the author of the village plan, both applications relied heavily on the published plan and data generated by it. Furthermore, the MCDA have adopted the plan and are to use it as a guiding statement for the next election (five-year) cycle. To this end, plans are in place to develop sub-groupings to match each of the six major recommendations from the plan. This was adopted on publication of the plan and prior to the outbreak of COVID-19. In 2023, the MCDA revived their funding submission with the support of Údarás na Gaeltachta for a new community centre under a new government scheme developed to explicitly address the lack of community spaces in Ireland. In May 2024, this application was deemed successful and has been allocated the highest share of all submissions across Ireland. Around €6m will fund the development of a new community centre in Moycullen, with building due to commence in Q1 2026.

Beyond the village, the plan was sent to national representatives of the area, copies were also sent to the regional assembly and Ministers of State with responsibility for local government and the environment. The plan was very well received and letters offering support from three TD’s were followed up on by the community development association. Local councillors also welcomed the plan, and it received local and regional media attention. The local authority was presented with the findings prior to publication (a Powerpoint presentation was given to the forward planning department which was well received). The county council also received a published copy of the plan, but no acknowledgement was received.

The same council opened up their 2022–2028 draft development plan for consultation in early 2021. A number of “Zoom” meetings were organised by the County Galway public participation network (PPN), a group established to enable people and community groups in Galway to “have a say on issues that concern them” under various theme from arts and culture to transport and infrastructure. Obviously, pandemic restrictions curtailed the participatory nature of the consultation. As part of their public consultation, Galway County Council hosted two webinars in July 2021 (made available online, with a total of 70 views). The Plan itself covers a population of just over 190,000 people and sets out a framework of development for five years. On top of the two webinars, local media adverts and social media posts pointed citizens the website consult.galway.ie. Opportunities to comment on the plan remained open for six weeks, a total of 1,632 submissions were received (no figures for physical submissions were provided). The Village Plan was submitted as part of the consultation process. In total, 15% of all submissions (240) related to Moycullen. For a village of less than half a percent of the population of the county, this is a significant representation and acts as proof of an activated population engaged in key development issues. At the smaller scale of the village, a recent proposed development of 36 houses in the centre of the village (subject to Part 8 planning permission) received a comprehensive level of engagement with over 2,000 signatures collected by community members objecting to the development on the basis that it contravenes those visions presented in the Moycullen Village Plan.

Moycullen’s success in mobilising its citizenry highlights the potential of establishing local governance structures that provide communities with a formal role in decision-making. As seen in Moycullen, the creation of a community council or similar body would offer a structured avenue for integrating local priorities into formal planning processes. Drawing on Clarke and Cochrane’s (2013) work on localism and governmentality, such structures would need to balance local responsibilities with genuine autonomy, enabling residents to influence planning in a way that reflects their community’s unique needs and aspirations.

The Moycullen Village Plan prioritised accessibility by offering diverse engagement methods, including in-person focus groups, mapping exercises and a digital Village Plan App. These varied methods ensured that community members could contribute through their preferred channels, accommodating different backgrounds and preferences. However, Moycullen’s experience illustrates the importance of supplementing digital tools with offline engagement to prevent exclusion. Embracing Healey’s (2006) collaborative planning principles, which emphasise inclusivity, the plan’s approach ensures that diverse voices are represented, fostering trust and a commitment to community priorities.

For long-term engagement, capacity-building initiatives are essential. In Moycullen, capacity-building efforts could further enhance residents’ ability to use tools like the Village Plan App or participate in community governance. Providing workshops and resources on planning procedures empowers communities to engage actively and confidently, addressing concerns about co-optation (Innes and Booher, 2000). Through these initiatives, residents can better advocate for their interests, reducing reliance on external expertise and strengthening community agency.

Community-led initiatives and experimental projects offer direct ways for residents to shape their environment. Moycullen’s mapping exercises and app-based planning model have provided platforms for residents to visualise and voice their preferences, while larger projects, such as the development of the Co-op building and a new community centre, represent tangible outcomes of community action. Expanding these experimental projects to address connectivity, sustainability and governance mechanisms, as discussed in Brenner and Theodore’s (2002) concept of “actually existing localism”, can reinforce the community’s role in local planning. These projects demonstrate that community-driven development can thrive within supportive structures, even within a centralised system.

By combining structural support with accessible and inclusive engagement methods, Moycullen’s experience demonstrates how communities can be empowered to shape their future meaningfully. The Village Plan offers a model for rural communities across Ireland, suggesting that a decentralised, collaborative planning framework could foster a planning culture that values community voices and prioritises local needs.

This paper explored the challenges and opportunities of implementing collaborative planning within Ireland’s highly centralised framework, using the Moycullen Village Plan as a case study. The research contributes to the broader debate on decentralised governance, participatory democracy and local autonomy by illustrating how communities can engage with planning processes in ways that are typically sidelined by top-down approaches. Through this case study, we show that collaborative planning − when properly designed − can empower local communities, foster active participation and ensure that development reflects the unique needs and aspirations of residents.

This study makes a key contribution to the ongoing discussions around the role of collaboration in planning, particularly within neoliberal and centralised contexts. By integrating collaborative planning principles with local governance structures, the research highlights how communities can counterbalance centralised power dynamics that often overlook their priorities. The findings affirm that the inclusion of local voices in planning processes is essential for fostering more responsive, sustainable and equitable development outcomes (Swyngedouw, 2009; Healey, 2004). Moycullen’s experience provides a model for how community-driven initiatives can coexist with − and challenge − the prevailing structures of centralised planning in Ireland.

However, the process used in this study largely adhered to a linear model of information flow: community input was gathered, shaped into policy and handed over to policymakers. While this approach led to significant successes, such as the establishment of a community centre and the activation of citizen engagement on key local issues, it remains a one-way flow of information. This approach, while valuable, has limitations in terms of long-term sustainability and responsiveness. Future work needs to embrace a more dynamic, iterative feedback loop, where information flows in multiple directions. In this revised model, community feedback is not only gathered but continuously integrated into the planning process, enabling real-time adjustments and fostering a deeper, ongoing engagement with the community (Goldsmith and Crawford, 2014; Innes and Booher, 2000). Moving away from a rigid, linear process to one that is more flexible and reciprocal will be critical in enhancing the efficacy and inclusivity of participatory planning initiatives.

The findings also offer valuable implications for policymakers and planners, particularly in terms of adopting more inclusive, decentralised planning processes. For planners, the study suggests that incorporating community-led initiatives, such as those exemplified in Moycullen, can lead to more sustainable and contextually relevant outcomes (Lennon and Waldron, 2019). However, this requires a shift away from economic efficiency as the primary driver of planning towards more holistic, people-centred approaches (Scott, 2006).

For policymakers, the research highlights the need for frameworks that support local autonomy while still aligning with national objectives. This could involve creating clear pathways for community input into national and regional planning decisions, ensuring that local knowledge is integrated into policymaking (Healey, 2006). Recommendations include the establishment of more community-based governance structures, such as advisory councils or participatory forums that allow for sustained local involvement in decision-making processes. By fostering these structures, policymakers can ensure that development meets both local and national needs in a balanced and inclusive manner (Clarke and Cochrane, 2013).

This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining interviews, focus groups and collective mapping exercises to capture a wide range of perspectives from the Moycullen community. There will always be issues with sample sizes and the representing of the most vocal element in any form of community participation (Patton, 2002), but the activating of the imaginary as can also be problematic. While much effort was expended in the production of “blank maps” for participants to populate, most were bound by already existing functions. Indeed to activate an imaginary often involved a prompt by referencing other places (national and international). Doing of this can be leading and consideration will have to be given to that in the future.

Furthermore, while the study sought to capture diverse perspectives through the use of multiple methods, there is always the risk that participants’ views were influenced by the specific framing of questions or the facilitator’s presence. Future research could address these limitations by using longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of community-driven planning on local governance (Bryman, 2016).

We know that the Neo-Gramscian perspective on governance (Davies, 2024) complicates the question of community autonomy within participatory planning. Rather than viewing local engagement as a straightforward process of empowerment, this perspective highlights how hegemonic structures strategically incorporate elements of participation to maintain broader neoliberal agendas. This insight is crucial when considering the Moycullen Village Plan and similar initiatives, as it underscores the structural limitations of participatory planning in an era of austerity/economic uncertainty and centralised governance. Moving forward, future research must critically assess how alternative governance models might emerge − ones that transcend tokenistic participation and allow communities to exert real influence over local decision-making, particularly in the face of economic and political pressures that continue to shape planning outcomes in Ireland.

Building on this study, future research could explore the scalability of the Moycullen model in other communities, particularly in larger urban settings or areas with more diverse populations. Longitudinal research would be valuable to assess how community-led planning processes evolve over time and how they interact with shifting national policies (Swyngedouw, 2009). In addition, comparative studies between communities with different levels of engagement could offer insights into how various local governance models impact planning outcomes. Further exploration of the barriers to genuine participation, particularly in neoliberal contexts, could provide valuable guidance for overcoming challenges to collaborative planning (Purcell, 2009; O’Hare, 2018). Most importantly, future research should focus on developing adaptive planning models that support a more continuous feedback loop between planners, policymakers and communities, ensuring that planning processes remain flexible, responsive and inclusive.

Funding: This study received support from Irish Research Council’s New Foundations Scheme 2019.