A NEWPORT man has won the right to keep a new extension and wall at his home – after his sister, who co-owns the property, objected.
A city council committee heard claims George Michalatos’ application was “misleading” and “flawed”, but despite the family feud officers found no planning reasons to reject the completed project.
Case officer Emma Brinkworth said 1 Ridgeway Avenue is a mixed-use property comprising two flats and a retail space.
The applicant sought retrospective permission to retain the extension for storage reasons, she added.
Mr Michalatos claimed the work carried out last summer was “critical” to his business, which sells radio control models.
“The sole complainant is my sister and co-owner,” he told the planning committee, adding: “My sister is opposed, having initially not objected.”
Mr Michalatos then alleged his sister, Marie Adams, “has got a vendetta” and “has taken an unhealthy interest in the building, having previously ignored issues with the garage and link extension”.
Ms Adams, also appearing before the planning committee on Wednesday, challenged her brother’s claims and described the application as being “riddled with inaccuracies”.
She said the new wall “blocked off” a passageway to the main road, which should have “unhindered and safe access”.
The new extension had been built on a patio area where previously “friends and family gathered to socialise over barbecues”, she told the committee.
Ms Adams said the completed building work was “impacting our enjoyment of the property” because of a “clear loss of view” from the downstairs flat.
The extension is “overbearing and unsightly”, she alleged, adding that “nobody wants to be staring at a store room”.
Mr Michalatos had also “not sought my permission” for the alterations, she claimed, adding: “I am taking legal action against him for gross infringement of my property rights.”
Allt-yr-yn ward councillor Pat Drewett said he “strongly” objected to an application he claimed contained “serious inaccuracies and misleading statements”, and contradicted conditions attached to previous planning permission for the property.
Cllr Drewett said the alterations represented a “serious fire hazard” and were “overbearing and oppressive” in appearance.
Committee members asked officers to clarify the situation regarding a notice of works and previous planning conditions.
Senior planner Stephen Williams said a letter had been sent to the property notifying the occupants of the proposed works, but the council could not confirm whether it had been received.
He explained allegations regarding fire hazards would be a matter for building control, not for planning.
Ms Brinkworth said the issue of consent for the works was not a “material planning consideration” and “should be followed through by another legal route”.
The planning committee’s members voted unanimously to approve the application, after Cllr John Reynolds was told the decision would not mean “the end of the road” for the ongoing dispute.
