Labor MP Paul Edbrooke criticises ‘illegal’ construction near Oliver’s Hill Lookout

A Coastal Conflict Erupts in Frankston: A Tale of Property and Protection

In the picturesque coastal area of Frankston South, a heated dispute has emerged between the Frankston City Council and local resident Gene Neill over unauthorized construction near the shoreline. The conflict began when Neill, a prominent businessman, undertook significant work on his beachfront property, including the clearing of vegetation and the construction of a seawall. The council, led by CEO Phil Cantillon, has expressed strong concerns, asserting that these actions were taken without proper permits and in potential violation of coastal protection regulations.

The Council’s Swift Response to Unauthorized Work

Upon discovering the unauthorized activities two weeks prior to the public statement, the council swiftly intervened, issuing a stop work order and a planning enforcement letter to Neill. These actions were communicated through a statement on the council’s Facebook page, detailing the cease-work directive and the potential legal consequences of non-compliance. Despite these measures, Neill maintains he has not received the order, fueling speculation about the communication breakdown. The council’s stance is clear: any breach of the stop work order may result in prosecution, underscoring the seriousness of the situation.

A Homeowner’s Defense: Protecting Property and Rights

Gene Neill remains unwavering in his stance, arguing that the disputed land is his private property and that the construction work is essential to prevent further land erosion, which he believes threatens his home. He dismisses critics, including local environmental advocate Edbrooke, as politically motivated, suggesting their opposition stems from broader ideological differences rather than genuine concern for the environment. Neill emphasizes that the cleared area is part of his property, as determined by upcoming survey assessments, and that the seawall construction is both necessary and professionally executed.

The Importance of Permits in Sensitive Coastal Zones

The council’s position hinges on the strict regulations governing coastal areas, stressing that any construction in these sensitive environments requires state government consent and appropriate permits. These requirements are designed to protect public and Crown land, ensuring that such areas remain accessible and preserved for future generations. Neill, however, maintains that his actions are lawful and necessary, pointing to similar constructions by neighbors as evidence of selective enforcement by the council.

A Dispute with No Clear End in Sight

As the conflict escalates, both parties prepare for a potential courtroom showdown. Neill, bearing the financial burden of legal fees, is confident in his case, while the council contemplates the implications of pursuing legal action. The broader implications of this dispute extend beyond the immediate parties involved, touching on issues of property rights, environmental protection, and governmental oversight. The outcome of this conflict may set a precedent for future development in coastal areas, making it a case of significant public interest.

Conclusion: Balancing Property Rights and Environmental Protection

The situation in Frankston underscores the delicate balance between property rights and environmental stewardship. While Neill’s actions stem from a desire to protect his property, the council’s role as a regulatory body is to ensure that such protections do not compromise public access or environmental integrity. As the legal process unfolds, the community remains divided, with some supporting Neill’s right to safeguard his property and others advocating for the preservation of public coastal spaces. The resolution of this conflict will not only affect the parties involved but also inform future policies and practices in similar contexts.