It was our little beachside escape. It wasn't glamorous, but it didn't need to be.
For more than six decades, Sandy Point Holiday Park has offered ordinary Australians a modest but meaningful stake in the coastal life — a place where the beach dream did not require wealth, only a yearly fee and a caravan. In June 2026, South Gippsland Shire Council voted, by the narrowest of margins, to allow that land to be subdivided into eleven private dwellings, a decision that would extinguish affordable access to one of the country's most cherished landscapes. The outcome sits at the intersection of planning law, climate risk, and an older question about who the coastline ultimately belongs to.
- A single casting vote by the mayor overturned community opposition and a prior tribunal rejection, leaving dozens of caravan owners facing the loss of their only affordable beachside homes.
- Twenty-nine objections were filed against the proposal, yet the council approved it anyway — a fracture between community will and institutional decision-making that has deepened local distrust.
- New flood mapping released by the same council just before the vote identified road access to the site as vulnerable in severe inundation scenarios, a risk critics say was not adequately weighed.
- If the development proceeds, Sandy Point loses its sole affordable accommodation, threatening the small businesses — the general store, the surf school — that depend on budget-conscious visitors.
- The Sandy Point Community Group has lodged a VCAT appeal, arguing the new proposal fails to resolve the same planning and environmental concerns that defeated an earlier, larger version of the scheme.
Sandy Point Holiday Park has anchored the South Gippsland coast for over sixty years — a place where people like Geoff Paine could own what he calls a "glorified shanty cottage" just behind the dunes, close enough to fall asleep to the Southern Ocean. For an annual fee, seventy-four caravan owners held their own plots, and the park also welcomed school groups and casual campers. It was never glamorous. It worked.
That arrangement is now under serious threat. In June, South Gippsland Shire Council approved a plan to subdivide the site into eleven private dwellings, a decision carried only by Mayor Nathan Hersey's casting vote. The application had drawn twenty-nine objections and a single supporting submission. A previous proposal for fourteen lots had already been rejected by the council and upheld on appeal by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This time, the council said yes.
For Paine and dozens of others, the approval means losing their foothold on the coast. The Sandy Point Community Group has lodged a new VCAT appeal, arguing the latest proposal fails to address the same planning and environmental concerns that defeated its predecessor. They are pushing for a masterplan rather than a straightforward subdivision.
The timing sharpened the controversy. Just before the vote, the council released flood mapping identifying an additional one hundred eighty dwellings and nine hundred properties at risk across the municipality. The caravan park itself sits outside the new inundation zone, but councillor Sarah Gilligan — who voted against — noted that road access could be severed in severe flooding. She raised a harder objection too: the development would strip Sandy Point of its only affordable accommodation. "This is a public beach," she said.
Local businesses that rely on the park's steady stream of budget visitors are watching the VCAT appeal closely. For now, the caravan owners remain in limbo — uncertain whether their modest slice of the Australian beach dream will survive, or whether Sandy Point's shoreline will quietly become the preserve of those who can afford to buy.
Sandy Point Holiday Park has been a fixture of the South Gippsland coast for more than sixty years—a place where people could afford to own a modest slice of the Australian beach dream. The caravans sat just behind the dunes, close enough that owners could fall asleep to the sound of the Southern Ocean. For an annual fee, they had their own plot within the small park, which also hosted school groups and casual campers throughout the year. It was never glamorous, but it worked.
That arrangement is now in jeopardy. In June, South Gippsland Shire approved a plan to subdivide the site into eleven private dwellings and remove some native vegetation. The decision came down to a split vote, with Mayor Nathan Hersey casting the deciding ballot in favor. The application had attracted twenty-nine objections and a single supporting submission. A council report from 2020 documented that the park had seventy-four privately owned caravan sites where owners paid yearly fees, plus ten camping spots. The park owner had tried this before—a previous proposal for fourteen lots was rejected by the council and that rejection was upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This time, the council said yes.
Geoff Paine bought his caravan at Sandy Point five years ago. He calls it a "glorified shanty cottage," but it gave him an affordable way to own a holiday home in a place he loves. "It was our little beachside escape," he said. "It wasn't glamorous, but it didn't need to be." For Paine and dozens of others like him, the approval means losing that foothold. The Sandy Point Community Group has lodged an appeal with the tribunal, arguing that the latest proposal fails to address the same planning and environmental concerns that sank the earlier application. They want a masterplan for the site rather than a straightforward subdivision.
The timing adds another layer of concern. Just before approving the development, the council released new flood mapping showing how rising water and inundation might affect townships across the municipality. The study identified an additional one hundred eighty dwellings and nine hundred properties at risk. The caravan park site itself sits outside the new inundation zone, but councillor Sarah Gilligan, who voted against the development, pointed out that road access to the park could be cut off in severe flooding scenarios. She also raised a broader objection: if the site becomes private housing, Sandy Point loses its only affordable accommodation. "This will remove all the affordable accommodation in Sandy Point," she said. "This is a public beach."
Gilligan argued that the council's hands were tied by outdated planning rules that don't account for coastal hazards. The caravan park owner, under current regulations, has the right to develop the land. But she called on the state government to strengthen planning protections against rising sea levels, coastal erosion, and flooding. The council's chief executive, Allison Jones, said the decision was based purely on planning merits and that whether the owner actually proceeds is a private matter beyond the council's control.
Local businesses are watching closely. The caravan park has been a reliable source of visitors to the town's general store, surf school, and other small enterprises. If the park closes and becomes private housing, that tourism revenue disappears. The community group's appeal to the tribunal will determine whether the development proceeds. For now, dozens of caravan owners remain in limbo, uncertain whether they will keep their affordable beachside homes or whether Sandy Point's coastline will become the exclusive preserve of those who can afford to buy.
Citas Notables
This will remove all the affordable accommodation in Sandy Point. This is a public beach.— Councillor Sarah Gilligan, who voted against the development
Whether the applicant elects to act on any approval that may ultimately be granted for the land is entirely a private decision and not one that council can influence.— South Gippsland Shire Council chief executive Allison Jones
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does a caravan park matter enough to fight over in court?
Because it's the only place in Sandy Point where ordinary people can afford to own a holiday home. Once it's gone, there's nowhere left for them.
But the owner has the legal right to develop their land, doesn't he?
Yes, and that's the problem. The rules allow it, but the rules don't account for what the community actually needs or what climate change is doing to the coast.
The council approved it, though. Isn't that the end of the story?
Not yet. The community group is appealing to the tribunal because the council rejected almost the exact same proposal a few years ago. They're arguing nothing has really changed.
What's the flood mapping got to do with it?
The council approved the development just before releasing maps showing the road to the park could be cut off by flooding. It raises questions about whether they thought this through.
So who loses if the development goes ahead?
The caravan owners lose their homes. The local businesses lose customers. And the public loses access to affordable coastal accommodation.
What does the owner say about all this?
The Age couldn't reach them. But the council says the owner is entitled to develop under current planning rules.