The " Sandon Point " battle.

The Sandon Point controversy is over ... or is it ?

For years the development of this beachside piece of land between the ocean and the escarpment has been at the centre of a running war between so called " activists " and " developers ".

A huge number of entities have been involved and these include government ministers, members of the public, corporate heads, Wollongong council, Aboriginal elders - and the two main parties, Stockland and Anglican Retirement Villages. Stockland wants to build luxury homes and the Anglican people plan a retirement village.

The battle has mainly been waged in the courts, but theatre has been provided by demonstrations and even a long running Aboriginal embassy on the site.

Now - at long last - it seems that a final decision has arrived. The High Court of Australia has handed down a finding that an activist seeking leave to appeal a decision can not proceed.

This follows the finding of a lower court that a ministerial decision failed to take account of the possible effect of global warming in raising sea levels, leading to site flooding.

The sad part is that in all the flak and fury of legislation and demonstration no consideration was given to the wishes of the owner of the land.

Surely an owner has the right to make the final decision - subject to the rules imposed by the local council - on what he or she wants to see happen to the asset to which they hold a deed ?

In this day and age it seems that any member of the public has the right to intervene, take legal action and establish a committee to impose their view. At no stage is there the suggestion that the owner will be compensated for the time wasted and the lack of return the asset is providing.

Of course, this poor, silly owner is fully responsible for items like rates imposed by council and land tax - and can be ordered to allow access for inspections and provide information as ordered by the courts.

It seems that the right of ownership of land has been seriously degraded in recent times. The right of " the community " takes precedence in determining the use of privately owned land and the owner is pushed into the background.

Perhaps the time is approaching when delay caused by objectors is subject to court imposed compensation.

In that case, those wishing to impose their will would need to put their money where their mouth is !