The High Court has ordered Michael and Rose Murray to demolish their unauthorised house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, and restore the land, granting them 24 months to comply.
Mr Justice John Edwards delivered the judgment on 29 June 2010, following a hearing on 8 March. The application was brought by Meath County Council under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The court granted the relief the Council sought and stayed its order for 24 months from the judgment date. The judgment says the order must be complied with in full by the end of that period.
The house was built without planning permission on land within a larger agricultural holding. The judgment records that the Council first became aware of the construction after a member of the public complained in February 2007. The Council had refused an earlier application for a smaller proposed dwelling in June 2006. It later refused an application to retain the house, and An Bord Pleanála refused the Murrays’ appeal in June 2009.
The Council’s case was that the house breached planning controls, including conditions attached to permissions for other homes on the wider holding that required the remaining land to be sterilised from housing or non-agricultural development. The judgment records that no formal sterilisation agreement had been executed, although the Council had received letters indicating agreement to sterilise the land.
In affidavits, the Murrays described their unsuccessful attempts to secure permission, their wish to remain near family and their children’s school, and the hardship demolition would cause. Michael Murray also argued that the dwelling was an agricultural building exempt from permission. The judge rejected that argument, describing the building as a large, imposing two-storey dwelling.
The court accepted that demolition would cause the family serious hardship, but found the development was a flagrant and unjustified breach, rather than a minor or technical infraction. It rejected the argument that the Council had delayed unduly, noting it acted after learning of the development and that proceedings followed when the house was not removed. The court concluded that the planning law had to be upheld, while allowing the 24-month stay in recognition of the difficult economic circumstances described in the judgment.