The Supreme Court has upheld an order requiring Michael and Rose Murray to demolish their unauthorised home at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, and restore the land, while granting them a further 12 months to comply.
In a judgment delivered on 19 May 2017, Mr Justice William McKechnie dismissed the couple’s appeal against a 2010 High Court order obtained by Meath County Council under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The order also prohibits further unauthorised development on the land. The new 12-month stay runs from the date of the Supreme Court judgment; the Court said the order must be complied with in full by its expiry.
The Murrays bought land in 2006 intending to build a family home. The Council had refused permission for a 283-square-metre house. The judgment says they then built a house of about 588 square metres and moved in during December 2006. Their applications to retain the house as built, and later to retain a reduced version, were refused by the Council and An Bord Pleanála. The Board cited the scale of development in a rural area, wastewater concerns, the house’s design and landscape impact, and conflict with conditions on earlier permissions for other sites on the holding.
The Murrays argued that demolition would cause severe hardship to them and their three children, and that the High Court had not given sufficient weight to their constitutional rights and the protection of the family home. They also challenged the use of the summary process and the Council’s authority to bring the case. The Council opposed those arguments and said the development had been built without permission despite the planning refusals.
The Supreme Court said section 160 could be used for a completed unauthorised development and that the summary procedure was suitable in this case, where the relevant facts were not disputed. It also rejected the challenge to the Council’s authority to start proceedings and said the ultimate decision on whether development is unauthorised rests with the court.
On the constitutional argument, the Court recognised that the house was a dwelling and that demolition would cause hardship. But it held that the home’s status did not outweigh the other factors in this case, including what it described as a deliberate and flagrant breach of planning law. It found the High Court judge had considered the family’s circumstances and correctly exercised the court’s discretion. The 2010 High Court order therefore remains in force, subject to the additional stay.