Latest news with #RoseMurray
Irish Times
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Couple fails to stop demolition of Co Meath home built in ‘wilful' breach of planning laws almost 20 years ago
A couple have lost a last ditch legal bid at preventing the demolition of their large Co Meath home built in 'wilful breach' of planning laws almost 20 years ago. There was 'no merit' to the appeals by Chris Murray and his wife Rose, Mr Justice Senan Allen said, when giving the three judge Court of Appeal 's judgment dismissing them. The appeals concerned an action that, while initiated in September 2022, was 'the latest battle' in a 20-year war about the fate of the unauthorised development at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan . It was, he believed, obvious to Meath County Council from the outset that the action and appeal were 'artifices calculated to postpone the evil day'. READ MORE After Mr Murray's 2006 application for permission to build a house on the lands was refused, the couple, 'undaunted, and in wilful breach of the planning laws', built a house anyway of about 588 sq m (6,220 sq ft), twice the size of the house for which permission was refused, the judge said. The council took proceedings in 2007 under the Planning Act and in 2017 the Supreme Court upheld High Court orders for the couple to remove any unauthorised development from their land. They were given one year to vacate the property. When that was not complied with, the council issued contempt proceedings in 2019 that settled in 2020 on terms involving the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate the council demolishing it. The council issued contempt proceedings in 2019 that settled in 2020 on terms involving the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate the council demolishing it Three days before they were to vacate, the Murrays issued a case against the council, claiming there was new evidence relating to land sterilisation agreements made by the previous owners of the land that invalidated the council's planning refusals. Last year the High Court granted a council application to strike out that case as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. In the Court of Appeal judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Allen said the couple built a 6,220 sq ft house without planning permission, 'well knew' they would need permission 'but hoped they would get away with it'. The Murrays claimed, as a result of actions, inactions and misrepresentations by the council, they had acquired a 'pig in a poke' title to the lands, he said. While a planning condition for a nearby residence stated an agreement sterilising (preventing) the lands from any other housing or non-agricultural development should be entered into – and the council relied on that in refusing permission to the Murrays – it was accepted no sterilisation agreement was ever entered. There was 'no justification' for contending the council misrepresented the case to the court, he said. The Murrays had not appealed the original permission refusal to An Bord Pleanála or sought to judicially review it, he said. They had had 'every opportunity' to make whatever case they thought they had; the courts had considered all they had to say but the Supreme Court had, in 2017, decided the house 'had to come down'. While they argued in this appeal that adequate account was not taken of their new evidence, there was no appeal against the High Court conclusion it would not have affected the original outcome. At the heart of their opposition to the council's enforcement procedures was a grievance with the refusal of their original planning application but, as a matter of law, that grievance was 'not justiciable'. Any infirmity in the original refusal could not conceivably have provided any justification for unauthorised construction of a house, still less one twice the size, he said. It was 'perverse' that the Murrays, having 'driven a coach and four' through the planning Act, were complaining the council failed 'to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures'. A 'so-called constitutional challenge' concerning the council's use of section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in its proceedings was unrelated to the new evidence, he said. The couple's fresh permission retention applications were not relevant to whether their proceedings raised a fair issue to be tried, he held. The couple had not identified any error in the decision under appeal, the court concluded.
Daily Record
26-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
Cathkin High pupil Rose hit the high notes as she won national competition
She won the Solo Performer of the Year category at the Scottish Young Musicians awards in Glasgow's Royal Conservatoire. A highly-gifted Cathkin High pupil certainly hit the high notes when she flew the flag for South Lanarkshire at a prestigious national event. Rose Murray was the finalist for the region in the Solo Performer of the Year category at the Scottish Young Musicians awards in Glasgow's Royal Conservatoire. This year there were 33 finalists, one representing every local authority in Scotland and one from the independent schools. And Rose won her award for performances of Song to the Seals by Granville Bantock and Taylor The Latte Boy by Zina Goldrich. As well as her award, to support her musical journey, Rose also gets to spend a day with Scottish Opera where she will meet with the production team and the cast of outstanding singers of their autumn production La Boheme. And she will also secure tickets to one of the performances. Scottish Young Musicians Solo Performer of the Year is Scotland's leading music festival for soloists and ensembles. Young musicians can compete to win big prizes, perform live on a national stage and push their skills like never before. Elaine Duffy, the council's instrumental music co-ordinator, said: 'We are delighted that Rose has been recognised at this most prestigious event. 'It is a real testament to her hard work and dedication over the years, supported by her singing teacher Sandra Hawkins.' Her performing career to date includes the council's annual Instrumental Music Service showcase in Hamilton Town House and soloist at the annual Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations. Rose has also performed with the South Lanarkshire Orchestral Society (SLOT) Senior Concert Band and has been invited to sing with Stewarton Winds Concert Band.
Sunday World
18-05-2025
- Business
- Sunday World
‘Punished for building a rural home' – Couple fear council will demolish home
Fifth retention bid for dwelling built without permission has been refused The house owned by Chris and Rose Murray at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Co Meath, which was built without permission from the county council A planning consultant has accused Meath County Council of 'punishing' a couple for 'building a rural house' after their fifth bid for retention for a property they built without permission was refused. Rose Murray and Chris Murray have proposed a series of changes to their home in Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, which would reduce the size of the property from 526 sq m to 259 sq m. Their latest application sought to demolish a carport, an attached domestic garage area with a living area overhead, a single-storey living room projection and balcony. There would be an overall reduction of the floor area, while the plans also included permission for the construction of a new single-storey dining space. 'These modifications have been carefully considered to ensure the dwelling is more proportionate, context-sensitive, and respectful of its rural setting,' the application form said. However, Meath County Council disagreed. It said the revised design fails to align with the Meath Rural House Design Guide. The council also viewed that the house has contributed to 'excessive development, which has eroded the character of this rural area'. Ms Murray has now appealed to An Bord Pleanála, with a decision due by August 8. In an 82-page document, Brendan Buck of BPS Planning Consultants, who is acting as a consultant for Ms Murray, has put forward a series of arguments for the board to consider. He has stated that demolishing the Murrays' home would have a 'catastrophic' effect and cause the family to become homeless during a housing crisis. We do not consider there to be sufficient basis to warrant refusal 'BPS supports the retention of the existing dwelling on the basis that while design-educated planners may not like aspects of the house design and may feel our client should be punished for unauthorised development, we do not consider there to be sufficient basis to warrant refusal,' the appeal document states. Mr Buck said the family have lived in the house for over 15 years and it is the only home they have ever had. He has submitted that demolishing 267 sq m of their property is 'a significant punishment for anyone to be subjected to'. 'Over the years, the house has remained a family home,' he said. 'While it may be argued that they have lived in an unauthorised dwelling, it is nonetheless the case that this is their home and Article 40 of the Constitution requires that An Bord Pleanála determine if in this case… Meath County Council's decision [which would cause the loss of their home, homelessness and demolition] would represent a proportionate interference with their property rights.' In its latest refusal, the council said the proposed development would give rise to excessive density of development in a rural area lacking public services. The house – even with the alterations – is considered to 'be out of keeping with and inappropriate in this rural environment'. The council also had concerns that the subject site can cater for the safe effective treatment and disposal of effluent. The house owned by Chris and Rose Murray at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Co Meath, which was built without permission from the county council News in 90 Seconds - May 18th Concerns were also raised that granting retention would set an undesirable precedent for further unauthorised developments. However, Mr Buck submitted that the Murrays' experience – which has been well documented in the media – would deter people from building a house without planning in the future. He argued that the house, if the proposed alterations are carried out, is compliant with the national planning framework, sustainable rural housing guidelines and the Meath County Development Plan. There is no unwritten rule against new rural housing at this location The council was also accused of granting permission to others in the area. 'Meath County Council has granted permission to others in this area since refusing permission to our client. Therefore there is no unwritten rule against new rural housing at this location and previous statements made by An Bord Pleanála that the area is possibly characterised by too high a density of rural housing must be viewed in this context,' the appeal letter states. 'We trust that everything is in order, and we look forward to receiving a favourable decision from the board in due course.' For the last two decades, the Murrays have been battling through the courts after building the house without permission. They also lodged a separate appeal after the High Court dismissed their bid to prevent the demolition of the property. In 2006, Mr Murray applied for permission for a dormer bungalow-style dwelling. Ms Murray previously told the Irish Independent that they were given assurances that there would be no problem securing planning before they bought the site. But their application was refused because the council had concerns about density and wastewater. It also referenced a sterilisation agreement which allegedly meant no other houses could be built on that land. Frustrated after having previous applications on two different sites also refused, the Murrays responded by building a house that was nearly twice the size of the original dormer they applied for. In the years that have followed, five bids for retention have been refused. Four of the applications sought to reduce the size of the house. Last year, An Bord Pleanála rejected another appeal by Ms Murray after she proposed reducing the size of the house by 166 sq m. The Murrays issued High Court proceedings against the council in 2022, where they sought to set aside previous orders mandating the removal of the unauthorised development. They had alleged there were procedural and substantive irregularities by the council. However, Mr Justice Conor Dignam's judgment, which was published last November, stated that he was 'compelled to conclude' that the claim should be struck out because he agreed with the council's argument that it was 'frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process'. The Murrays' legal action sought to pause High Court and Supreme Court enforcement orders that would see their home demolished. They argued new evidence had come to light which invalidated the initial planning refusals for their home. Mr Justice Dignam did not agree and dismissed the claim. The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal in January. In the meantime, Ms Murray again applied for retention. Following the council's refusal, an appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála. In a previous interview with the Irish Independent, Rose Murray said they regretted the decision to build the house without permission. She felt, however, that it would be 'ludicrous' to knock down the property in the middle of a housing crisis. In 2020, the couple agreed before the High Court to settle. As part of the settlement, where it was alleged they were in contempt of a court order to demolish the property, they undertook to vacate the family home, and agreed it should be demolished by September 24, 2022. We've had birthday parties, graduations, celebrations and wakes in this house However, at the 11th hour, they sought to halt the demolition in light of new evidence. The Murrays said they had only agreed to a settlement in 2020 as Mr Murray's mother was seriously ill at the time and they did not want to further engage in court proceedings. She passed away during the pandemic. 'We've had birthday parties, graduations, celebrations and wakes in this house,' Ms Murray said. 'It has been our family home for 17 years. We've been farming the land and now have 30 cows and have been growing our crops. It's the only family home we've ever known.' When contacted, Meath County Council said it cannot comment on this matter at this time as it relates to a planning application which is currently under consideration by An Bord Pleanála.
