They are not. This area has been privately owned by my family for four generations. In the 1950s the little beach hut with porch was the family home, and we ran the family fishing business from the neighbouring sheds. Consequently the buildings and land are of huge sentimental value to our family.

We haven’t fenced our boundary, choosing instead to leave this area available to the public to enjoy in the hope they will treasure it as much as we do.

Despite having to clean graffiti, remove rubbish and put up with party goers, we have allowed access – the same access that enables painters and photographers to capture the huts and the lucky in love to wed – now being touted as reasons why we shouldn’t be able to add a necessary water tank to our land.

Sadly, our selflessness has made our property a target for public comment. 

We have been told our new tank structure, which was included on our original DA, does not appeal to a minority. They also don't like our spa, which sits on the deck above the tank, and have organised a petition for it to be removed.

The tank holds firefighting water to keep the beach huts and our home safe as we border heavily forested national parks. Due to the sandy soil, its footings, position and structure was determined by a structural engineer, to ensure safety and minimal impact to our beach buildings.

The spa itself doesn’t need approval as it holds less than 3000 litres of water.

This intrusion on our privacy may force us, after so many decades, to reconsider public access to our land and iconic buildings.

For now we will leave our decision in the hands of the protesters, media and council. All of this information would have been made known to them if they had just asked. 

Thank you to the many who have offered their support, it is truly appreciated.