As a society of young working families, we need more childcare places than ever before and we need them in communities where the children of working parents live. Yet people trying to set up creches, nurseries and playschools are being frustrated by the NIMBY ("not in my backyard") syndrome. Everybody loves children, of course, but do you want them next door?

Local residents are opposing planning applications for creches, citing nuisance, traffic and noise. Even IBEC was refused planning permission when it attempted to lead the way for its members by opening a creche in a residential area. An Bord Pleanala regularly turns down applications from creches, even when they have already received health board and local authority planning approval and are up and running - for several years in some cases. In the past 22 months, 12 creches in the Republic have been told to close by An Bord Pleanala, even though local authorities had previously granted "temporary" planning permission.

In 18 per cent of appeals regarding creches, the nine member board rejected the report of its own inspectors advising that the board grant permission. This compares with a 7 per cent turn-down rate of inspector's reports in all other types of development.

Another aspect of the problem is that local authorities have been granting "temporary" permission to creches, with an option to reapply. The result is that owners, who may make huge financial investments, are suffering the insecurity of not knowing how long their businesses will last.

Likewise, hard-pressed parents who have been glad to find reliable, safe and nurturing "second homes" for their babies and toddlers are in a quandary, not knowing how long the creches will remain in business. Temporary permission also excludes creche owners from millions of pounds in Government grants, the availability of which is conditional on having full planning permission.

The battles start the moment a creche owner applies for planning permission. Refusal may occur even if there is only one resident who doesn't want young children being cared for in the house next door - or even across the road - for fear that it will have a detrimental effect on "amenities" (that is, property values). In each case, the wishes of one or two residents often win out over the needs of dozens of children and families.

"The message is that children are a nuisance and that property is more important than children," asserts Ashling Hooper, a childcare professional who has spent £7,500 on her four-year legal battle to keep her successful Early Days creche open. Ashling is determinedly keeping going for the sake of the 30 families she serves (there are 19 children in the creche at any given time), despite the fact that An Bord Pleanala refused her appeal in September 2000. Her story exemplifies the conflict between the needs of children, parents and childcare workers on the one hand, and the concerns of residents on the other.

In 1996, Ashling returned from the US with a degree in childcare. She bought a five bedroom semi-detached house on Clonkeen Road in Deansgrange, Co Dublin because it was ideally situated for a creche, at the end of a row of shops and on a major transport route.

Within this business district, there are two banks, a pub, a motor dealer, a post office, a chemist, a dry cleaner's, a SuperValu, a chip shop, two dentists and a doctor. There is only one residential dwelling between Ashling's property and these other businesses, and the owner of that dwelling has not opposed her plans. It's not as if the sounds of children playing are unusual in the area either: Ashling's garden backs on to the yard of a national school, where more than 300 children play daily. And about a mile along the same road, there is another creche catering for 60 children.

Informally advised by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (DLRCC) that her site was perfectly placed, Ashling invested £20,000 in developing the property so that it would comply with childcare regulations.

In October 1996, she was granted temporary permission for three years by DLRCC. This permission was upheld by An Bord Pleanala in the face of objections from local residents. Under the terms of the planning permission, Ashling was allowed to have 10 children. Two years later, the Eastern Regional Health Board inspected and approved the creche, advising Ashling to increase her child numbers to 19 under the Pre-School Regulations Act 1996. With so many families desperate for high-quality childcare, Ashling took on an extra nine children.

In 1998, Ashling applied to DLRCC to retain the increased number of children, but was refused. She appealed to An Bord Pleanala and was again denied permission to take on the extra children, some of whom were the younger brothers and sisters of children already in the creche.

In October 1999, when her three-year temporary planning permission was at an end, she applied for continued use of the creche and, again, to retain the increased number of children. In February 2000, DLRCC granted Ashling permission for 14 children, five less than the health board had considered appropriate. Neighbours appealed, while Ashling appealed the stipulation that only 14 children be accommodated. Then, in September 2000, An Bord Pleanala rejected the whole application, seemingly giving Ashling no option but to close.

An Bord Pleanala's decision went against the recommendation of its own inspector, who stated: "The proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity [and] would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience."

The board disagreed with its inspector, stating that "continued use of the premises as a creche would seriously injure the amenities of adjoining houses".

Ashling is now trying to protect the security of the children in her care - not to mention her own livelihood and those of her five employees - by reapplying for planning permission. She hopes that next time her application may be evaluated in the light of the Department of Environment's new Guidelines on Childcare Facilities (May 2000). The guidelines, which are in draft form but which will be issued in permanent form on January 1st 2001, urge planning authorities "to increase the number of childcare places and facilities available".

Unfortunately for Ashling, the guidelines relate only to creches which applied for planning permission to their local authorities after May 2000.

Ashling's case is not an isolated one. Between January 1999 and November 2000, An Bord Pleanala has refused to grant permission to 12 creches that had previously been given permission by their local authorities. In 10 other cases, it upheld the permission.

Sinead Prendergast's creche, serving 44 children in Terenure, Dublin had been open for five years on temporary permission when An Bord Pleanala rejected its planning permission. After five years in business, Prendergast decided to expand in response to demand and applied to Dublin Corporation, which granted her permission. One objector then took a third-party appeal to An Bord Pleanala, who rejected her permission against the advice of its own inspector.

"There is a pattern of An Bord Pleanala turning down appeals given by the local authority and approved by the health board," says Eamon Gilmore, environment spokesman for the Labour Party.

Gilmore hopes that An Bord Pleanala, an independent body, will respect Government policy when the new Department of Environment guidelines become law in January. He has proposed an amendment to the new Bill that, in cases where An Bord Pleanala rejects the advice of its own inspector, it must state the reason.

An Bord Pleanala responds that "it decides an appeal only after having given full and careful consideration to the proposed development in the context of the proper planning and development of the area . . . The board is not bound by the recommendation of its inspector. The board always gives a reason for its decision in its order determining an appeal".

Temporary planning permission is another critical issue. A particular problem in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, temporary permission is worse than no permission at all, believes Mary Hanafin, Minister of State at the Department of Health.

"It's unfair to allow someone to set up a business with the expectation of continuing it, then once parents are satisfied with a good service, they find it snatched away from them," Hanafin says.

She also believes it is wrong that temporary permission excludes creche-owners from Government grants.

"I have a serious problem with county managers who give temporary permission," she says. "If a place is good enough for temporary planning, what is going to change over the next couple of years? Creches are not going to be building huge extensions."