PLANNING REFORM WON’T WORK WITHOUT PLANNERS
By Robert Molloy, Executive Planner at Foundation
May 2026
Do we need a more honest conversation about resourcing in planning?
Not another headline conversation. Not another panel discussion where everyone agrees there is a problem and then moves on. A proper conversation. A frank one. One that recognises that the planning system is only as strong as the people available to operate it.
Planning is a people business. It is judgment, experience, confidence, negotiation, interpretation and communication. Legislation, guidelines, policy objectives and statutory timelines all matter, but they do not make decisions. People do.
That is the core issue.
The Irish planning system is now carrying an extraordinary weight: more law, more procedure, more risk, more scrutiny, more housing pressure, more infrastructure urgency, more environmental complexity and more judicial review anxiety. But there are not enough planners. Not enough experienced planners in local authorities, not enough in private practice, and not enough coming through the education system at the standard now required.
That last point is uncomfortable, but it needs to be said. I left university four years ago. That is not long enough to claim decades of wisdom, but it is long enough to see the gap between what planning education says it is preparing people for and what the profession actually demands.
This is not about naming courses or criticising individuals. Many young planners are bright, committed and keen to learn. The issue is structural. Too many are arriving into practice without the practical grounding, written clarity, procedural awareness or confidence required to contribute meaningfully at the pace now expected. They are being taught about one world and then thrown into another.
The profession does not have time to wait. Every application now requires more analysis, more coordination, more evidence and more justification than before. Local authority departments are stretched. Private consultancies are stretched. Senior planners are overloaded. Mid-level planners are being pushed up quickly. Graduates are being expected to contribute earlier and faster. Everyone is carrying more than the system can reasonably support.
This is not fixed by recruitment numbers alone. Yes, we need more planners. But we also need planners who are better prepared.
That starts with education. Planning courses need to be more honest about the profession students are entering. The job is not only about policy ideals, spatial theory and high-level urban principles. Those things matter, but they are not enough. A graduate planner now needs to understand a vast array of policy areas and development management standards and systems to gain a real understanding of the challenges.
That does not mean universities should become consultancy training centres. But it does mean planning education must be more practical, more rigorous and more closely connected to the realities of practice. The profession cannot keep relying on employers to finish the job.
At present, too much of the practical training burden falls on private firms and local authorities after graduation. That might be manageable in a well-resourced system. It is not manageable now. Employers are already under pressure. The mentoring capacity young planners need is the exact capacity the system lacks.
The consequences show up in output. Reports require heavier review. Written work can lack precision. Policy analysis can be too generic. Planning judgment is often underdeveloped. There can be limited understanding of what a decision-maker actually needs, what an applicant must evidence, or how a planning argument should be structured.
Planning is too often described as an obstacle, a blockage, a problem, or a drag on delivery. That narrative is corrosive. It affects morale, recruitment and retention. Why would a graduate choose planning if the public narrative is that planners are the problem? Why would an experienced local authority planner remain in post if every decision is criticised, every delay personalised and every judgement exposed to legal, political and public challenge?
We need to make planning an attractive profession again. That means pay, but it also means status, respect, progression, mentoring, flexibility and a clearer sense that the work matters.
Public and Private Sector Pressures
Public and private sector resourcing are now in direct competition. Local authorities need experienced planners. The private sector needs them too. Both sectors are competing for the same limited pool of experienced planners.
In recent years, the recruitment balance has shifted. Local authorities are no longer always the weaker competitor. In many cases, they can offer a package that private practice struggles to match when the whole offer is considered: salary, pension, stability, structured hours, job security, public-sector perks and clearer separation between work and personal life.
That creates a structural problem. If private consultancies cannot compete for experienced staff, they will struggle to retain them. If they struggle to retain them, output slows, and so too does the system. A planner in private practice operates under constant pressure. Client expectations are high, deadlines are compressed and responsiveness is expected at all times. At the same time, the risk profile of planning advice continues to rise.
This is not to suggest local authority planners have it easy. They do not. Planning departments are under pressure, caseloads are heavy, decision-making is exposed and the work is often thankless. But from a career-choice perspective, the comparison has changed. Younger planners are looking at workload, flexibility, mental health, pensions and whether the additional stress of private practice is actually matched by the reward.
I chose private practice early, and I remain glad I did. It has given me pace, exposure, responsibility and a direct understanding of how planning advice affects real projects, real investment, and real delivery. It is an excellent training ground. It sharpens writing, forces judgment, and teaches quickly that planning is practical, commercial, political and human.
But none of that makes it easy. The responsibility arrives quickly, often before planners are properly supported for it.
So this is not an argument against private practice. It is the opposite.
If we want a strong planning system, we need a strong private sector as well as a strong public sector. We need local authorities that are properly resourced, but we also need consultancies that can attract, train and retain planners. We need a profession where people can choose different paths without one side being treated as lesser, easier, or more virtuous than the other.
The industry has to be built as a whole. That means better education, better mentoring, better workloads, better career structures, and a more honest conversation about what planners are now being asked to carry.
Goodwill and pressure cannot be the long-term foundations of the profession. You cannot reform a planning system while neglecting the people expected to run it.
