I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan.

It is great to see the Minister of State in here today.

Across the country, local authorities are undertaking significant transport, cycling and public realm projects. These projects often have major implications for local communities, businesses, commuters and residents.

Public consultation is presented as an opportunity for people to have their say. Citizens invest considerable time preparing detailed submissions, attending information events and engaging in good faith. However, many people increasingly feel that once a preferred option is published, the outcome is already decided. This perception is damaging, especially when people are being encouraged and given the option to give their input.

I firmly believe that consultation should not become a box-ticking exercise where submissions are acknowledged but have little or no influence on the final design. The purpose of consultation is surely to improve projects by drawing on local knowledge, identifying unintended consequences and testing assumptions before decisions are finalised.

I have recently received communication from people in Tallaght regarding the proposed Old Bawn Road active travel scheme in south Dublin. Whether people support or oppose elements of the scheme is not the point I am making today but what concerns me is that, while many people believe they will be raising significant issues, they may ultimately have very little bearing on the final decision.

In the context of the Tallaght village enhancement scheme, where many residents, businesses and community stakeholders have expressed concern that they felt unheard despite making detailed submissions and attending the information sessions during the consultation process, I would like the Minister of State to outline whether consideration is being given to strengthening transparency and accountability and requiring local authorities to clearly demonstrate how issues raised through public consultation have influenced the final design and decision-making process.

My concerns are not unique to one project. It is something I am hearing more and more in regard to the Part 8 planning process and the section 38 roads scheme throughout the country. People want to know how the submissions are assessed and who evaluates them. Is every submission read individually? Are independent technical reviews ever commissioned where substantial evidence is presented? How often have public submissions resulted in significant amendments to a scheme? How many schemes have been materially changed following consultation? If hundreds of submissions raise the same issue, how is that reflected in the final recommendation? I think these are all very reasonable questions but I am unclear on the answers.

Consultation is not simply about counting submissions for or against. A single, well-researched submission containing technical evidence may identify an issue that deserves serious consideration. Equally, local residents often possess practical knowledge about traffic patterns, school travel, flooding, accessibility or road safety that may not be fully reflected in modelling exercises. If people believe their views are ignored regardless of the quality of their submissions, confidence in public consultation will decline.

I ask the Minister of State to outline what measures are currently in place to assess the effectiveness of public consultation under Part 8 and section 38 procedures. Specifically, is there any national framework that measures whether public submissions have influenced final decisions? Are local authorities required to demonstrate how significant issues raised during consultation have been addressed? Does the Minister of State believe there is scope to strengthen transparency by requiring councils to publish a clear response explaining which recommendations were accepted, which were rejected, and the evidence supporting those decisions?

I thank Senator Costello for raising this issue. It is an interesting one and certainly provides food for thought in regard to the Part 8 process, how it works and how effective it is. I will go through the Part 8 process to explain how it works and then add a couple of comments afterwards.

The local authority own development approval process, commonly referred to as the Part 8 process, is set out under section 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and the associated Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended. Part 8 approval is a reserved function of elected members.

Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 establishes the statutory procedure through which a local authority may undertake development on its own behalf. The process is designed to ensure transparency, public participation and democratic oversight in relation to development projects. Article 81 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 requires that the local authority give notice of a proposed development in an approved newspaper and must fix a site notice or site notices on the land on which the proposed development would be situated. Article 81(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 sets out the information that must be included in the public notice for a proposed Part 8 development by a local authority.

The plans and particulars relating to a proposed development are required to be available for inspection for a period of not less than four weeks beginning on the day of the publication of the notice. Any submissions or observations in respect of a proposed development can be made during this period or a period of not less than two weeks after the end of the period for inspection. This equates to a period of not less than six weeks for the public to submit any observations or submissions. The planning authority sends similar notices during this period of time to prescribed bodies to afford them the opportunity for input.

Following on from the end of the consultation period, the chief executive of the planning authority is required to prepare a report summarising and outlining the submissions received, while evaluating the planning merits of the proposal. The report includes a list of the persons or bodies who made submissions in accordance with regulations and may also include recommendations regarding amendments or mitigation measures where appropriate. The elected members are required to consider the report before making a decision on the proposal in the interests of proper planning and development. The statutory process affords the opportunity for consultation before a decision is made by the elected members on a Part 8 proposal.

I guess that outlines the Part 8 process. The Senator already knew that; she already knows exactly how it works. To answer her question in terms of transparency, the comments on each submission and why submissions may have been rejected or accepted, it appears to be down to each local authority and there seems to be a bit of a case-by-case basis involved.

I am not sure if the Senator was ever involved in a Part 8 process. I certainly was. In Cork, there certainly were examples where there might have been a major housing development that was given planning permission under Part 8, and where there was quite a lengthy back-and-forth process between the chief executive and his team and the members of the council. I found it quite effective in that where local residents might have raised concerns, we were able to tease them out. I think the whole point of the Part 8 process is that it does actually in many ways give more of an input from the public. They have two opportunities to have a say in the in the final scheme. They can place a submission during the public consultation period, but also they have their members who, at the end of the day, will be the ones making the decision.

What I picked up from the reply was that the chief executive may include a comment on each individual submission. Maybe that is where things can be teased out further going forward. Maybe there should be requirements to actually put in a comment on each submission. I get the Senator's point. There may be valid submissions made, but the chief executive's report may not include a detailed response as to why that submission was not taken into account.

During my time as a councillor, I was involved with Part 8 developments. I have huge respect for South Dublin County Council. To be parochial, these developments have transformed my area of Tallaght. We have fabulous parks. I was involved in a Part 8 process for an older persons' housing developments. The community's views were seen and heard. It is a lovely place to live. Those houses are like gold dust now.

I really worry about the section 38 developments, particularly because councillors do not get to vote on it. It goes out to public consultation. People are just so annoyed in my area with all of the road works that are going on, all the roads being narrowed, all the disruption, yet the elected representatives do not get to vote on it. All they can do is point people towards a public consultation. I have stood at the side of the road myself giving out about a particular junction that was narrowed. People do not feel heard when it comes to this. They feel like things are being pushed through without their feelings being heard.

I get the Senator's point about section 38 developments. In a Part 8 process, the members of the council have a vote. Ultimately, if there is an overwhelming feeling that the scheme will not work, they can take that democratic decision. In situations where that is taken away, I understand the difficulty the Senator outlined. Sometimes there may be an attitude that the council knows best, and not enough cognisance is taken of the submissions that are made. I have seen this happen time and time again. There have been incidents where we get it wrong, though. I remember in my town of Clonakilty, a Part 8 process happened and I was vehemently opposed to the redevelopment of a square. It has turned out to be probably one of the best things that has ever happened to my home town. It is tricky and tough. The Senator's overarching point is something that we need to take back to the senior Department to try to get more oversight in terms of the effectiveness of submissions. When a scheme is designed, it cannot just be a fait accompli. If there is genuine feedback, it has to be taken into account in some way, as opposed to there just being a box-ticking exercise.