LAST UPDATE | 19 Mar

CONTRACTORS ARE AT the site of a house in Co Meath at the centre of a long-running planning dispute.

Workers are currently at the property in Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, as Meath County Council acts on foot of High Court orders granted earlier this week.

In a statement, the council confirmed it is “currently acting on foot of High Court orders” issued on Monday and Wednesday.

“The Court has directed that the Council, with the assistance of An Garda Síochána, take possession of the property and proceed with demolition in accordance with existing court orders,” it said.

Gardaí told the court earlier this week they had been unable to locate the owners of the house, Rose and Michael Murray (also known as Chris), after orders were issued for their arrest over an alleged failure to vacate the property by September 2022 and facilitate its demolition.

There have been numerous legal challenges between the couple and the council before the High Court, Supreme Court and Court of Appeal over the past two decades.

This afternoon, the High Court refused a last-minute bid to halt the order granting the Counil permission to take possession of the house.

The house, located on an isolated rural road, is largely hidden from view by surrounding walls and shrubbery.

The development was refused retention permission by the council in 2008 on a number of grounds.

At the time, planners found the house would contribute to “excessive density” in a rural area lacking key services and would set an “undesirable precedent” for similar development.

Concerns were also raised about wastewater treatment, with the council finding that an increased concentration of individual systems in the area could be “prejudicial to public health”.

The size and design of the two-storey house were also cited, with planners saying it was “out of character” with the surrounding area and would be an “unduly prominent and incongruous feature” in the landscape.

More recently, in 2025, the council again refused permission, reiterating concerns about rural overdevelopment and wastewater infrastructure.

It found the proposed system did not meet environmental standards and that the development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

‘Security men with balaclavas on’

Speaking from abroad on The Claire Byrne Show this morning, Rose Murray said she had been told demolition could begin imminently.

“As far as I know, the demolition crowd are ready to move in to demolish my home today after 20 years,” Murray said.

The couple built the house in 2006 despite being refused planning permission, something Murray acknowledged was a mistake.

However, she said ongoing attempts to resolve the issue had failed.

“For the past 24 years, we’ve been approaching Meath County Council looking for planning permission on different sites around the area,” Murray said.

Murray also confirmed that warrants have been issued for her and her husband’s arrest in relation to the case.

“There was a warrant out for myself and my husband’s arrest in the last few weeks,” she said.

“I left the country because I was going to be arrested for living in my own house for the last 20 years.”

She described the scene earlier this week when officials and security personnel arrived at the property.

“My son was at home. Twenty masked security men with balaclavas on them came into the house, escorted by a load of gardaí and a member of the county council, gave him an eviction notice, told him to pack his bag and get out of the house,” Murray said.

“My son was turfed out onto the street, they gave him the phone number of a bed and breakfast that he could go and stay in.”

‘Barbaric’

According to Murray, her adult children were left without a place to stay and are currently with friends.

“It’s barbaric that you can pay your taxes in this country all your life and then be treated like that and put into a bed and breakfast,” Murray said.

You wouldn’t see it in a movie, so you wouldn’t.

In a statement, Meath County Council said that their staff, with the assistance of gardaí, “engaged on site with family and community representatives to facilitate the removal of personal belongings and household items” in line with High Court directions.

“The Council acknowledges the cooperation of those involved in this process,” the statement continued.

The couple said they had offered alternative solutions, including reducing the size of the house and even donating it.

“We offered to give the house to charity, so we did. They didn’t accept it at all.

“They just want to go ahead and return it to a green field, so they do,” she added.

Murray said she will not return to Ireland until the threat of arrest is lifted.

High Court hearing

At a remote hearing of the High Court this afternoon, a solicitor acting on behalf of the Murrays applied to halt the demolition of the property while they awaited a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Neil McNelis told the court that the application to the ECHR had been made “as a matter or urgency” due to “serious violations” of human rights and that it was not “some spurious application or delaying tactic”.

He said he was unable to access the court proceedings online on 16 March, when the court order was granted, and that the first his clients knew of it was when gardaí had already moved onto the property.

He said his application was being made pursuant to asking the court to allow the “bone fide applications” to the ECHR to be pursued. “It is being pursued under the most urgent procedure available, which is a rule 39 application,” McNelis said.

A rule 39 order can be granted to prevent irreparable harm to an applicant while their case is pending.

McNelis said that after his clients made an application to the ECHR, they asked the council “to respect our position and the position of the European court, to allow it to do its business before they advanced”.

The reality here is Meath County Council are determined to get the house down before the matter comes before the European court.

When asked by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys if he knew where his clients were, McNelis said he did not. He said he understands that they are somewhere in the country, but that he did not have their address.

He told the court that he communicated with them through email exchanges and through mobile phones.

‘They’ve lost everything’

McNelis said his clients are “extremely frightened”.

“They’ve lost everything. They have been punched enough,” he said.

“To have them do the walk of shame in front of the media, maybe that’s what Meath County Council want, to have their moment in the sun. I’m saying they’ve suffered enough and I think public opinion would support me in relation to that.”

Deirdre Hughes BL, on behalf of Meath County Council, said McNelis was asking the court to vacate the attachment order that was made by the court.

She also said that he was contending that because the Murrays had made an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that “somehow the council’s continuation of these proceedings are undermining that application”.

Hughes said there is no rule of law that any application to the ECHR should act as a stay to the domestic courts. “There has been no application made to this court for a stay pending any such determination,” she said.

“There’s absolutely no basis upon which the court would view itself prohibited from continuing on with this application or revisiting any of its orders as a consequence of a purported application being made to the [European] Court of Human Rights.”

Hughes said the attachment order has been made returnable to 23 March and that if the respondents wanted to raise any issue regarding the order, they are entitled to make that application to the court in person.

She said it’s “wholly inappropriate” to come before the court today to suggest “that his clients have now cooperated and have now facilitated the council in their course of demolition of the property”.

Hughes also said she was anxious that the court was aware that Meath County Council “are currently in the process of demolition of this property”.

“They have gone in this morning, property has been removed subject to the agreement with the respondents,” she said. “That’s already occurred and it’s hoped that the demolition will continue unhindered for the rest of the day and tomorrow.”

Mr Justice Humphreys said he agreed with the general point that the right of an application to the ECHR should not be interfered with, but in general terms, “enforcing an order does not constitute interference with the right of access to Strasbourg”.

He said in his experience, “this is not the sort of thing they tend to issue a rule 39 indication about”, but that if they did, he would take note of it immediately.

The judge said the Murrays were entitled to submit an affidavit in relation to the allegations of contempt of court against them before 23 March and it would be heard then.

He said the order granting the council permission to take possession of the property stands.