The High Court has refused Tipperary County Council permission to enforce a 2013 order insofar as enforcement would require families to leave mobile homes and caravans at a site in Powerstown, Clonmel. Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan found a real risk of disproportionate interference with residents’ rights, given changed circumstances and limited evidence about suitable Traveller-specific accommodation.
The Council had appealed against a Circuit Court order made in January 2023 granting it liberty to pursue enforcement of the earlier order. That order addressed the occupation and condition of Council-owned land, including three Railway Cottages and nearby dwellings. The 2013 order included provisions concerning unauthorised structures, animals and sanitary works, as well as requiring residents to vacate mobile homes and caravans subject to alternative housing being available.
The Council’s 2021 application alleged that unauthorised units and animal structures had returned to the site, and that substantial numbers of dogs, horses and poultry were being kept there in breach of the order. The judge said the site remained overcrowded, with about 30 people living around three cottages. She also noted that the application gave little detail about current animal welfare concerns, while veterinary evidence filed by some residents described the animals examined as well cared for.
The judge accepted that the Council had met the threshold of explaining why it had waited more than six years to seek leave to enforce the order. Changes at the site, including the arrival of new families and the return of animals and animal-related structures, provided an explanation, though she said it would have been better for the Council to address the delay directly in its evidence.
However, the court found that the passage of time, residents’ personal circumstances and changes to conditions at the site required a fresh consideration of proportionality. The Council had not adequately addressed what steps it took to provide Traveller-specific accommodation, or supplied enough detail to assess the suitability of accommodation offers. The court could not therefore conclude that allowing enforcement of the residential provisions would avoid disproportionate interference with residents’ rights.
The judge distinguished removal of people from removal of animals and animal-related structures. She said enforcing provisions concerning animals and related structures would not, on the evidence, create the same risk of disproportionate interference with rights. She also said permission for sanitary works could be considered if supported by evidence of need.
The court’s operative order refused leave to enforce the 2013 order insofar as it would require residents to vacate mobile homes and caravans. The judge said she would hear the parties on consequential matters, including whether leave could or should be granted for parts of the order only. The judgment did not finally determine that question.