Chicken Coops Must Be Built To The Same Building Code As Homes & Must Survive A Category 3 Hurricane, Court Hears

By Alric Lindsay

Several persons appeared in the Summary Court today, July 23, 2026, facing a charge of failing to comply with an enforcement notice. According to the persons, who are reportedly farmers, the compliance challenge arose because the building code and regulations require chicken coops to be built to house building standards and to withstand category 3 storms. It is a situation that could prove to be costly in terms of construction for farmers already on low incomes.

The first defendant was Glendon Buchanan.

According to Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Buchanan submitted an application on August 25, 2025, which was accepted in December 2025. However, the fees were not paid, and as at July 21, 2026, the application had still not been assigned to a planner for review.

Buchanan told the court that, in speaking with the planning compliance officer, he had been informed that the land had been rezoned “from a farming zone to a medium density residential” area. He said the rezoning was why the fee had gone unpaid — the change had been made after his application, and, as he put it, “they went ahead and changed the rezoning of the land.”

He said there had been a further development: approval from the ministry to relocate the chicken coops from their present location to new lots at an agri-park, which he said meant the matter was being resolved.

Asked by the Chief Magistrate when that would happen, he said he could not say: “We have been waiting on the approval of the lease.”

The exchange then turned to the regulations themselves.

Buchanan explained that planning had not been the body regulating coop construction, and that the code now applied to chicken coops “is the same code as building a house.”

The Chief Magistrate’s reaction was audible in court. “That would be the best-housed chickens ever in the whole entire world,” she remarked.

Buchanan continued that under the regulation the structure was “supposed to be required to withstand the category 3 hurricane,” and that the cost of constructing an outdoor chicken house to that standard was $60,000.

It was against that background that the Chief Magistrate asked: “In light of all of this, is this charge really necessary?”

Buchanan was then released, the Chief Magistrate giving him an absolute discharge.

The next defendant was Stacy Samantha Campbell.

She was represented by attorney John Furniss, who told the court that her architect’s plans were due to be submitted tomorrow.

The Chief Magistrate asked whether the architect was “submitting the plan for the chicken coops which need a category 3” — a reference to the requirement that the structures be able to withstand a Category 3 hurricane.

Furniss confirmed that they were, and explained why the work went beyond a simple structure. There would have to be “a strengthening,” he said, “because the suggested basic plan provided by the department will not withstand strong force winds, we are told.”

“So, the chickens have to be protected,” Furniss added.

The Chief Magistrate indicated that Campbell appeared to be doing what she had been directed to do.  Accepting that the work would take time, the Chief Magistrate said she would bring the matter back, and fixed it to be mentioned again on October 22.

The last defendants were Patrick Floyd Chin, Deborah Ann-Marie Chin, and Roxene Andres Chin-Forde.

The particulars were that, as registered owners of a property, they were served with a notice under section 18 of the Development and Planning Act in October 2024. It gave them two options: apply for after-the-fact planning permission for the unauthorised chicken coops and for keeping the animals in a residential zone, or remove the unauthorised chicken coop and animals and tidy the surrounding land.

Before pleas were taken, the court turned to an email sent to it the previous day by one of the family, setting out the difficulty they had faced securing an architect.

Crown Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions told the court that architects had “independently advised that pursuing the preparation of architectural drawings would likely be unsuccessful,” because the planning application process required the consent or input of “the same individuals who lodged a complaint against them.” Both architects, it was said, had also expressed concern that it would be unfair for the family “to incur significant expenses for architectural drawings, professional fees, and planning department application fees when in their opinion the application was unlikely to succeed,” and did not wish them “to spend substantial sums of money in a process they believe would ultimately be unsuccessful.”

DPP Crown Counsel added that the family’s position was that they had “made every reasonable effort to comply with the directions that were given” and that “at no point have they ignored or refused to follow the process” — they had attended the required meetings, sought clarification from the planning department, contacted the recommended architects and “carefully followed every step that was explained to them,” reaching a point where they could progress no further.

The Chief Magistrate’s response was immediate: “But have they removed the structure then? Because that’s the other option.”

The Chief Magistrate added that other people were in court in the same position had resolved their cases: one with the agriculture department and one with an architect.

The Chief Magistrate continued:

So, when an architect tells you you’re not going to be able to get planning permission here, they have a reason.

And that is why your neighbours and other people are complaining, because you have no right to be using your land. Your trade and business licence don’t give you that right, and nothing else gives you that right.

One of the defendants told the court she had approached a politician who telephoned her and asked her to explain what had happened. She said she sent him photographs of the chicken coop as requested and continued following up with his office without further reply.

She said she had also been told by someone from the agriculture department that the government was assisting people in their position with land, and had pursued that, attending a meeting after being called in.

“But Your Honour, we tried everything possible,” she said.

“Except taking down the structures,” the Chief Magistrate replied.

The family asked for further time, telling the court they were trying to find buyers for the chickens and could not simply release them. “They are not chickens like the common chicken that is running around. They are caged animals” — and releasing them would bring the Department of Environment down on the family.

The Chief Magistrate agreed to allow more time, but with a warning about what it was costing since the case had been before the court since September of the previous year.

The Chief Magistrate  did the arithmetic aloud: “From last year to now, we’re almost looking at 365 days” — “times a thousand dollars.” The exchange put the family’s potential exposure at around $365,000, though no fine was imposed at this hearing.

The charges were then put to each defendant, who pled guilty to the planning enforcement charge.  All three were bound over to return on October 14 for sentencing and told the family to make sure the work was complete by then.