Siblings’ Feud Over Property Extension Comes to a Head in Newport
A family dispute over a new extension and wall at a shared property in Newport has come to light, with a brother and sister pitted against each other in a public row. The controversy unfolded at a recent Newport City Council committee hearing, where George Michalatos, the owner of the new extension, clashed with his sister, Marie Adams, who co-owns the property.
The property in question, located on Ridgeway Avenue, consists of two flats and a retail space. Mr. Michalatos sought retrospective permission to retain the extension, citing its importance for his business, which deals with radio control models. He maintained that the work carried out last summer was essential for his operations.
However, Ms. Adams objected to the extension, claiming it negatively impacted their enjoyment of the property. She alleged that the new wall blocked access to a passageway leading to the main road and disrupted social areas where friends and family used to gather. Furthermore, she criticised the extension as being overbearing and unsightly, causing a loss of view for the downstairs flat.
During the committee hearing, Mr. Michalatos accused his sister of having a personal vendetta against him and of taking an excessive interest in the property. He claimed that Ms. Adams had initially not objected to the extension but later changed her stance. In response, Ms. Adams denied these allegations and stated that the application contained inaccuracies and had not received her permission.
Local councillor Pat Drewett also weighed in on the issue, highlighting concerns about the application’s accuracy and potential safety hazards. He expressed worries about the extension’s visual impact and described it as oppressive in appearance. Despite the objections raised, the council officers found no planning reasons to reject the completed project.
Ultimately, the planning committee unanimously approved Mr. Michalatos’s application, indicating that the decision did not signal the end of the ongoing dispute between the siblings. The committee clarified that issues related to consent for the works should be pursued through alternative legal channels, and any concerns about fire hazards would fall under building control’s jurisdiction.
The resolution of this family conflict highlights the complexities and challenges that can arise when co-owning property with relatives. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication and consensus-building in such arrangements to prevent disputes and ensure peaceful cohabitation. As the siblings navigate their differences through legal channels, the broader community observes how family dynamics can intersect with property ownership issues in a public forum.