‘We live every day with the horror that a crane with a wrecking ball could come and knock our home to the ground’

The couple at the centre of a Supreme Court order to demolish their family home on the outskirts of Navan have appealed to Meath county councillors to help save their property from the wrecking ball.
The High Court made an order in 2010 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on the 9th May 2017, directing Michael and Rose Murray, at their own expense, to tear down their 588sq m home at Faughan Hill in Bohermeen and return it to its original agricultural state within 12 months. 
That year has now passed and the Murrays’ case can now be referred back to the Courts where the couple who have three children could be found in contempt of court and force demolition work to commence.
In a lengthy letter emailed to all Meath county councillors and seen by the Meath Chronicle, the Murrays are requesting them to intervene in the long running planning dispute with the County Council and stop the Council carrying out the court order to demolish their five-bedroomed home.
“Meath County Council as the planning authority, now has the option in its own discretion to bring an application to court to apply for us to be held in contempt of court and seek to compel us to carry out the order which they obtained for us to demolish our home,” say Chris [Michael]  and Rose Murray. 

In order to comply with the Court Order Chris Murray, who works in the construction industry and his wife Rose estimate that the cost of demolition will be in the region €326,000 plus VAT. 
“The order made by the courts has expired and we are now at risk of being referred back to the High Court to compel us to demolish or face being held in contempt of Court. Quite separately there is an order that the legal costs of Meath County Council in respect of the court proceedings brought against us in their entirety be discharged by us.
“We are a family of six consisting of Chris Murray, Rose Murray; three young children aged 12, 17, and 18 and Mrs Murray’s mother who is 80 years of age in July.
“Our position is that we simply do not have the funds available to pay for the demolition. Naturally on the demolition of our house we will become homeless.”

The story dates back 12 years when after numerous attempts to obtain planning permission in relation to three separate pieces of land.
On their third attempt, this time in relation to the plot of land at the heart of the case, the Murrays say they took no chances and claim they checked with planning officials and a local politician to see if indications for grant of planning were favourable. On the strength of their assurance the couple went ahead and purchased the land.

“The extraordinary thing was that with the two other pieces of land on which, we had previously bought and applied for planning and were refused, we had to sell these as a result. In respect of both of those sites the people who bought from us, had no problem getting planning.
“So we thought maybe on our third attempt this time with the benefit of advice from the local official planners we might get permission. Unbelievably our application however, was turned down. We made a fairly standard application for a dormer bungalow. But still our planning was refused.

“Out of sheer total frustration and desperation, without lodging an appeal against the last refusal, we decided to go ahead and build a house on the land. What was built was larger in proportion to the property for which we had applied and were refused planning permission. We felt at the time this would not have made any difference in any event.
“That was back in 2006. We soon discovered that we had made a life-changing mistake and one we would deeply regret every day since, for the next 12 years. We accept fully that what we did was both arrogant and stupid. We accept that the planning authority is entirely within its rights and obligations to robustly defend and vigorously enforce the planning laws. We had rather naively believed that if the house was in place, given the history of numerous applications that we had made, at huge expense, we felt with our third application on our third plot of land, that Meath County Council would eventually reluctantly agree to allow us retain our home on the land.”

The Murrays have lived every day with the nightmare and stress of knowing that at some point the Council could force them to demolish their home. They say they have made several offers to the Council to reduce the property’s footprint in a bid to achieve an acceptable development for the Council.
“From the moment we made the fatal error of constructing our home without planning permission, we have done everything possible in our power to try and rectify the situation. We have lived with this problem for the past twelve years. We tried at first instance and on appeal to obtain retention; we offered to demolish two out-buildings and a conservatory, to reduce the size. On a separate application to address conditions for refusal of retention raised, we replaced a septic tank with a state of the art treatment system. On a further proposal we offered to demolish almost half the house again in the context of a retention application.

“All of these proposals were spurned and rejected out of hand by the Council and by An Bord Pleanala in the context our retention applications. It is understandable that the Council feels it is obliged to strictly apply the planning laws and in that context therefore the only remedy that we understand was sought in Court by the Council, was for complete demolition and the return of the lands entirely to its original agricultural state. That being the remedy sought and argued for by the Council the Courts had no other option but to issue the Orders applied for by the Council and the Court made the order to enforce a demolition order under the planning act.”

The full letter to Meath County Councillors can be read here

In their letter to councillors the couple say they are are prepared to do “anything whatsoever that the Council requires of us, if only the Council will agree to allow us to remain in our home”.
“Our house is not intrusive in any way, it is up a quiet laneway well in off the road. No one locally is complaining. In fact quite the opposite, all our neighbours are supporting us in our efforts to save our home. So other than the query raised in 2006 by a person not living in the immediate area no one has said anything against our house. The house itself is not in a prominent location. There are a huge number of people locally who have agreed to offer their support to us. At an estimated demolition cost of up to €326,000 plus vat, we simply cannot afford to demolish the house and yet, although under court order we are legally obliged to do that.
“We have no way of raising money to demolish our house. We do however believe that if we are allowed to remain in our home we can use it as security for people who have offered to support us and other third parties could, on the security of the house advance monies to us, to allow us to discharge the legal costs and indeed ascertained additional expenses of Meath County Council planning department caused by our case. 

“We are prepared that if the Councillors prevail upon the Council’s Chief Executive not to apply for us to be held in contempt of court and allow us time, we sincerely believe we can with support referred to above, suffer whatever penalties and costs as should be deemed proportionate and appropriate but allow us to save our home.
“We are asking all the councillors or those of you, who are prepared to intervene on our behalf, to support and put a motion before the Council, calling on the Council and its Chief Executive and Head of Planning not to issue any Court application and allow us raise the funds to discharge Council’s costs and their expenses. 

Meath County Council has previously said it would not apply for legal costs against the Murrays in the event they demolished the home.
“We can certainly be held up as a warning to others and on the one hand, be seen to be financially penalised and on the other, save the ratepayers of County Meath the consequences of having to underwrite in full, the costs and consequences of our wrongdoing. We are the ones who have done wrong here; the ratepayers of County Meath are potentially entirely innocent victims.”
“The Council if it proceeds, as we have suggested can achieve the dual objective, of severely punishing us for what we have done wrong, breaching the planning code as we did, yes the message will be received publicly, loud and clear, that planning offenders will be prosecuted. Whilst at the same time the Council will recover all its costs so that the rate payers of County Meath are spared unnecessary expense.”

“Our request is to be allowed to put matters right, please allow us to do so and prevent our home, being demolished and save six people being made homeless”.
We asked Meath County Council what their intentions were regarding the demolition order on the Murray house and its position on legal costs being waived on foot of demolition taking place and are awaiting a response.

TIMELINE:

June 2006 - Meath County Council refused planning permission on grounds that additional housing would result in excessive density of development in unserviced rural area.

Nine months later Meath County Council receive a complaint from a member of public that a large house had been built on the lands.

May 2007 - Retention permission refused on the five-bedroomed property.

Nov 2008 - Compromise offer by the Murrays to demolish part of the 588 sq m home is rejected by planners.

July 2010 - High Court orders the house be demolished and given two years to comply. The case is appealed to the Supreme Court

May 2017 -  The Supreme Court upholds the original High Court decision and orders the Murrays to demolish their home within 12 months.