Elderly Roscommon couple living in a caravan and using a shipping container for storage court hears

A Ballaghaderreen couple before a court for breach of planning laws are living in a caravan and using a shipping container for storage. They say they have nowhere else to live.

At a special sitting of Roscommon District Court Malcolm and Michelle Farrell with an address at Tullaghanrock, Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon were before the court in a case taken by Roscommon County Council for failing to comply with an enforcement notice served on them in August 2022.

The court heard that the couple were living in a caravan at the site, which they owned, and using a shipping container for storage. Planning permission had not been secured for the development. They had also installed solar panels, water butts for rainwater harvesting, a vegetable garden, and areas for goats. There were also seating areas in the container as well as a flue and a stove.

The court heard that planning retention applications and applications for social housing had been submitted by the couple but had not been processed as they were incomplete.

Mrs Farrell and her daughter appeared before Judge Vincent Deane. Mr Farrell, aged 75, was unable to attend court as he was unwell, the court heard. The council was represented by Patrick Barden of St John’s Solicitors, Dublin and he brought Tracy Davies, senior executive planner at Roscommon County Council through her evidence. The Farrells were not legally represented in court.

Mr Barden told the judge that in October 2017, the council received a complaint about an unauthorised development at the accused’s address. This consisted of a caravan, shipping container, a parking area for two cars, drains, and piping works. The complaint also noted that the road had been cut open to allow for pipes to be installed, and that there were concerns about effluent.

In October 2017 a warning letter was issued by the council about the alleged unauthorised development. In response the Farrells said that the container was on the site of a former house and that the drains were already present.

Subsequent inspections carried out by the council found completed drainage works, and fencing, as well as the caravan and container. No septic tank or wastewater treatment facility was on the site, the court heard. Although a chemical toilet was present on the site.

Ms Davies said that the local authority housing section had engaged with the couple as “we felt there was a housing need”. She added that the council felt the couple had been given every opportunity to regularise the matter.

Warning letters had been issued to the couple in 2019 by registered post. In response the Farrells said that they were homeless and had no choice but to live on the land.

Ms Davis said that the council understood the difficult circumstances the couple were in and was anxious for the couple to engage with the housing section.

At a later site inspection, council officials saw that the property’s gates were padlocked, and the couple did not speak with them. It was subsequently decided to proceed with enforcement action, requiring the couple to remove the development, cease its use, and restore the land to its previous condition.

Inspections carried out in August 2024 found that while no new developments had been carried out, the enforcement notice had not been complied with. An inspection carried out in the days before the court found that the situation remained the same.

Giving evidence, Mrs Farrell said that “this is our home”, and that they had been told by a solicitor that they did not need planning permission for the container. No written evidence of this alleged advice was presented to the court.

She said that the couple did not have anything to do with the road being cut, and that this was the work of a contractor. Mrs Farrell accepted that they had not complied with the enforcement order and said that they had heard “nothing” from the council’s housing section.

“Where are we going to live?” she asked, adding that she had asthma and her husband had diabetes. “We have nowhere to go. We are fighting for our home.” She added that “I know my husband won’t move”.

The judge said that even to a lay person it was very clear that a breach of the planning laws had taken place. He said that the matter had run from 2017 to 2025 and had not improved. The judge said that the council had been slow to bring legal action, saying it has been going on for eight years.

Mr Barden said that the council was not seeking a fine but rather for the enforcement order to be complied with.

The judge put the matter back for six months for the accused to engage properly with the council, which he said had not happened so far, and to comply with the enforcement notice.

“I am not accepting that everything that could have been done has been done,” he said. He told the accused that he wanted real engagement not passing paper back and forth.

“If I find there isn’t proper engagement, I’ll take a very serious view,” he said. He was told that if an application for housing was made, a decision would be made within a few weeks.

He warned that failure to comply with a court order was a serious matter, and could result in a fine or imprisonment, and “the last thing I want to do is put people like yourselves into custody”. He also did not make an order for costs, “but I might reconsider that, if there isn’t any real engagement”. If there was engagement and the enforcement notice was complied with, no fine would be imposed, he added.

The matter was adjourned until March next year.