At a Dunedin City Council meeting on Monday, chief executive Sue Bidrose suggested the partial removal of the Aramoana wharf because of the risk to public health and safety but the retention of any piles in good condition.
The motion also included any reusable materials from the wharf to be recovered and council staff to continue working with the Aramoana community on options for new structures or potential developments at the site.
The council would also apply for a Doc concession immediately.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Earlier, a council report had deemed the wharf ''unsafe and deteriorating'' and recommended it be demolished.
Ownership of the wharf was transferred to the council in 1989 after local government amalgamations.
A 2012 assessment recommended a barrier and signage be installed to prevent public access as it was in a dangerous condition.
In the same year, staff recommended it be demolished, but last year the community and environment committee approved the Aramoana League's restoration and funding plan for the structure.
In March this year, council staff met members of the Aramoana Pilot Wharf Restoration Charitable Trust, and parties opposing the project, to discuss concerns and find a way for the trust and staff to apply for a Doc concession. However, an agreed approach could not be reached.
In July, consultant MWH wrote in a report on the wharf it was ''in a very dangerous condition and is at a high risk of collapse at any time''.
The report to Monday's meeting recommended the council approve the wharf's demolition and for council staff to work with the Aramoana community on any development at the site.
The report, written by recreation planning and facilities manager Jendi Paterson, said restoration was an option but it was ''not recommended by staff''.
At the meeting, trust member Andrew Noone said the trust had sought advice and believed the concerns in the report about health and safety could be overcome.
Trustee Tracey Densem said the trust wanted the council to lodge a Doc concession ''as soon as possible''.
''Doc either say yes or no to the concession - if yes, we proceed with restoration; if no, then game over.''
If the concession was granted, the cost for the council to demolish the wharf would be cheaper because existing piles could remain for the restoration project.
The restoration on the ''existing footprint'' would restore ''a historical harbour asset for current and future generations'', Mrs Densem said.
After the meeting, Mr Noone said the wharf should be restored so ''future generations have the opportunity to have the structure to fish off, observe wildlife and passing cruise ships. We think it's worth fighting for.''
The fight included raising about $120,000 to rebuild the wharf.
About $10,000 had been raised so far and $10,000 worth of building materials had been secured, Mr Noone said.
The restored wharf would continue to be owned and maintained by the council.
Doc Coastal Otago operations manager Annie Wallace said a concession was required from Doc for any structure on public conservation land. She declined to comment yesterday when asked if Doc was concerned about the environmental impact of having the wharf restored.
''Doc can make no further comment at this time regarding concessions applications, as these are governed by statutory process and as yet we have received no formal application from DCC.''
