In a long-standing dispute over a Meath house no planning permission, Chris and Rose Murray, residents of Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, near Navan, Co Meath, have been ordered to demolish their 526 sq m home, built in 2007 without Meath planning permission.
The couple’s property, constructed in what courts have described as a “wilful breach” of planning laws, has been at the center of a nearly two-decade legal battle with Meath County Council, culminating in a recent Court of Appeal ruling upholding the demolition order.
Despite multiple attempts to secure retention for their home, the Murrays have faced consistent refusals from both Meath County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála, primarily due to concerns over excessive density and wastewater management.
A History of Planning Disputes
The Murrays’ troubles began in 2006 when their initial application for Meath planning permission to build a home on their land was rejected by Meath County Council.
Undeterred, the couple proceeded to construct a 6,220 sq ft house—twice the size of the proposed structure—without authorization, leading to a Meath house no planning permission controversy.
Meath County Council initiated legal proceedings in 2007 under the Planning and Development Act, and by 2017, the Supreme Court upheld orders mandating the removal of the unauthorized structure.
The couple was given one year to vacate, but non-compliance led to contempt proceedings in 2019, settled in 2020 with an agreement to vacate within two years to facilitate the Meath demolition.
In a last-ditch effort to save their home, the Murrays proposed demolishing 267 sq m of the property to address concerns about its size and impact.
However, An Coimisiún Pleanála rejected their latest retention application, citing excessive density in a rural area under development pressure and unresolved wastewater treatment issues.
This decision aligns with Meath County Council’s consistent refusals, with five prior retention applications denied for similar reasons, marking another setback in the Meath County Council home demolition refusal saga.
Planning Inspector’s Perspective and An Coimisiún Pleanála’s Ruling
During the appeal process, planning inspector Darragh Ryan assessed the Murrays’ case, arguing that a refusal based solely on excessive density was not justified, as similar developments had been permitted nearby since 2007.
He noted three approved planning applications in the vicinity: a dormer house on the same private road, a single-storey home 500 meters away, and a part single- and part two-storey house 450 meters away.
Ryan emphasized that the Meath County Development Plan supports individuals with genuine rural housing needs and that the area, with approximately 40 houses within a 500-meter radius, showed a precedent for such developments.
Despite this, An Coimisiún Pleanála disagreed with Ryan’s assessment on density, pointing out that one of the cited approvals predated the current development plan, and the others included conditions limiting occupancy. The commission concluded that granting retention would set an “undesirable precedent” for further development in an area already under pressure, reinforcing the house ordered to be demolished ruling. Additionally, concerns about wastewater treatment led to a recommendation for a new site suitability assessment, further justifying the refusal.
“While the unauthorized construction represents a clear breach of planning control, the scale and design of the house are incongruous with the rural character,” Inspector Ryan noted, though he acknowledged that matured landscaping had mitigated some visual impact.
Legal Challenges and Court of Appeal Ruling
In 2022, the Murrays initiated High Court proceedings, alleging procedural and substantive irregularities by Meath County Council and claiming new evidence related to land sterilization agreements invalidated the council’s refusals. However, Mr. Justice Conor Dignam struck out the case as “frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.”
The couple appealed, but on August 5, 2025, the Court of Appeal, led by Mr. Justice Senan Allen, dismissed the appeal, stating it had “no merit.”
The court criticized the Murrays for building a house without planning permission, noting they “well knew” permission was required but “hoped they would get away with it.”
The court also addressed the couple’s claim that the council misrepresented land sterilization agreements, finding no justification for their arguments.
The Murrays had not appealed the original 2006 refusal to An Bord Pleanála or sought judicial review, missing opportunities to challenge the decision legally. The court concluded that the Murray v Meath County Council case was an attempt to delay the inevitable Meath demolition, affirming the 2017 Supreme Court order to demolish the unauthorized structure.
Implications for Rural Planning in Meath
The Meath County Council home demolition refusal underscores the challenges of balancing rural housing needs with sustainable development.
While Inspector Ryan argued for equitable treatment based on local precedents, An Coimisiún Pleanála’s decision reflects a stricter interpretation of planning policies to prevent uncontrolled development.
The case also highlights the importance of adhering to Meath planning permission regulations, as unauthorized constructions face severe consequences, including demolition orders.
The Murrays’ situation serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners considering building without approval, emphasizing the long-term legal and financial risks. As Meath County Council prepares to enforce the demolition, the community awaits the resolution of this high-profile dispute, which has sparked debate over consistency in planning decisions and rural development policies.
About the Author
