Frankston
GET YOUR
FREE TV GUIDE INSIDE!
Celebrating 20 years in 2026 Fighting for the community since 2006
An independent voice for the community
Your weekly community newspaper covering Frankston, Frankston South, Karingal, Langwarrin and Seaford
FREE
Tuesday 8 September 2026
For all advertising and editorial needs, call 03 5974 9000 or email: team@baysidenews.com.au www.baysidenews.com.au
Aussie call-up right on cue GARY Bradshaw (pictured on right with teammates Mal Bailey and Dan Lynch) is a regular at JD’s Pool Hall in Frankston, but he will soon take his talents overseas. Bradshaw has received an unexpected call-up to the WPA blackball pool championships in England in October. See sports page 17. Picture: Gary Sissons
Supreme Court rules on childcare dispute Brodie Cowburn brodie@baysidenews.com.au PLANS for a new childcare centre in Frankston South have stalled after a legal battle which ended up in the Victorian Supreme Court. The site at 253 Humphries Road is currently owned by Tueno Investments Pty Ltd, which also operates Beachwood Early Learning Centres at 53 The Fairway in Bonbeach and 105
Humphries Road in Frankston South. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled on an ongoing contract dispute between site vendor Tueno Investments and developer Saltworks Investments FS, which was planning to buy the land and lease it back to the original owner. Last year, Tueno Investments agreed to sell the land to the purchaser for $2.25 million with a deposit of $112,500 subject to multiple “special conditions”. Tuneo Investments was
required to obtain a planning permit for a 138-place childcare centre, and the parties were required to execute an Agreement for Lease and Lease for the Property within six weeks of issue of the planning approval. The initial 15-year lease would have started at annual payments of $4,650 per licenced place per annum. The Supreme Court found that the vendor had failed to obtain planning approval by a deadline of 30 September, 2025. Its finding noted that “the
vendor’s evidence addresses its contentions as to why that occurred and seeks the court to conclude that it is arguable that this was due to the conduct of the purchaser, or the architecture firm which shares a common director with the purchaser.” The parties did not subsequently enter into an AFL and lease, but on 27 January purchaser Saltworks Investments FS informed the vendor that “it elected not to rescind or terminate the contract by reason of the failure of the
special conditions, but affirmed the contract instead and elected to proceed to settlement in six months on 27 July, 2026.” Saltworks Investments FS was the plaintiff at the Supreme Court, seeking to force settlement of the land without executing the agreed lease. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the plaintiff and dismissed the case, leaving the future of the site in limbo. Continued page 7