Police have intervened in a tense stand-off between a Melbourne couple and the local council over a roller door blocking access to a lane.
Justine and Paul Cubbin erected the door behind their property in Cameron Place, in the suburb of Albert Park, about two months ago with a permit issued by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Port Phillip City Council wants the door removed because it blocks off the end of the lane and cuts across a neighbour's garage.
Council contractors attempted to pull it down this morning, but the Cubbins called police.
The couple said they owned the land at the end of the laneway and had a right to block it off.
They have shown ABC News a deed from the 1800s which shows the land belongs to them.
The council said they had a later title that did not include the land.
Police said the door could not be removed today because the council did not have the authority to pull it down.'No bad blood' between neighbours
The Cubbins said they were relieved, but wanted a more permanent solution.
Ms Cubbin said they have felt bullied and intimidated by the council's tactics to protect their courtyard which is 12.29 square metres in size.
"I've got a planning permit to erect the roller door. I have a building permit," she said.
"I've done everything by the book so if council now say that I can't act on a planning permit I can't see what that means for other planning permits."
Ms Cubbin said she had been in contact with her neighbour about the access issues.
"There's no bad blood between us, we're both looking to the council to resolve the problem one way or the other," she said.
"But we need to make it abundantly clear, that council allow that roller door to be constructed on her property while this dispute was going on.
"I have never intentionally blocked anybody's access."
Chris Carroll from the council issued a brief statement after its contractors were denied access to the site.
"Unfortunately the resident who has illegally erected a roller door on a public road, will not grant access for the power to be cut," he said.
"Therefore, we need to consider incurring the expense of further legal action to reinstate public access to the road way, particularly for the landowner whose access is currently being obstructed."