Government intervention in creche closure has parallels with reduced landlord rights in PRS

Change of use for commercial premises is often refused

Just curious but does it make any difference that a building has gone through several use changes or does it rely on the original use when it was built? The building was a national school back in the 1860s and the PP in 2004 was a change to crèche from residential.
 
Just curious but does it make any difference that a building has gone through several use changes or does it rely on the original use when it was built?
I don't believe past usage would play too significant a role, consideration would focus on zoning and aspirations laid out in the Development Plan for the area along with the impact the change would have on the surrounding community. I've seen rezoning more often refused for changes to childcare due to local concerns regarding nuisance that would be caused by increased traffic volumes.
 
No. But it preserves the possibility of a creche. If there is nowhere in the neighbourhood zoned in a way that permits use as a creche then it is impossible that there will be a creche, and that would be a very poor outcome.

It's already open. Anyone who has a site suitable for the operation of a creche can apply to have the site rezoned.
Well then it is not "impossible" that a creche be opened
 
It's impossible within a timeframe which helps the parents of the 80 children in question.
As the existing creche is closed and very unlikely to reopen, then at least it offers a possibility..

Which is better for the parents than not having it..
 
There;s no possibility of a creche opening on another site unless another site is rezoned for the purpose, which can only happen if the owner of that other site applies for it to be rezoned.

Which is the whole point made in the objection. If the existing site is rezoned way from creche use, then there will be no creche. The concerns raised by that are not assuaged by saying that hypothetically, at an unspecified time in the future, an as yet unidentified site might be rezoned for chreche purposes.
 
This whole issue is a time-bomb waiting to explode for years. Individual crèches owners are not making good money. They’d make more doing less in other fields and with much less responsibilities. Crèche workers are transient and generally low paid. Recruitment and retention are issues.

I can’t solve the problems involved with childcare. There are Garda Vetting, Possibility of Litigation, Frequent HSE Assessment, High Rent, Running Costs issues. Who’d want to open a crèche? I wouldn’t, it’s a blatant stressful and low reward venture.
 
It's another example of perfection being the enemy of the good. Standards are set at a level which make the sector unviable economically and the required qualifications create a labour shortage.
If we want Creches to be schools then they should be housed within schools. If we want them to be places where kids are looked after, play and are safe then why are we treating them like schools?
 
Last edited:
Story today in the IT (paywalled):


Tallaght creche on premises of the TU closing when its existing lease runs out at end of year. 50 children looking for places elsewhere.
The lease end date seems to be the main reason, although the creche mentioned regulations around air temperature control for which they had installed a temporary solution and were asking Tallaght TU to install a permanent solution.

The connection with the previous case in this thread is that the government is expecting private business to provide sufficient pre-school childcare places but it's apparently not a sufficiently attractive business for the operators to continue. Other European countries have both extended periods up to 3 years of parent (or at least mother) support after the child is born AND/OR state-run kindergartens and nurseries. Ireland has neither.
 
Other European countries have both extended periods up to 3 years of parent (or at least mother) support after the child is born AND/OR state-run kindergartens and nurseries. Ireland has neither.
Those parents pay more income tax and, in particular, more indirect taxes, in other parts of Europe. We give parents cash instead of providing services because the State is useless at providing services. The problem is that the standards and regulations are set at a price point beyond which the market will stand. The solution is either a) provide even more cash or b) lower the standards to a point at which the market can function with the existing subsidies. I'd prefer the latter option.
 
Back
Top