Stop the Stadium has given its own calculations of the stadium's cost today, as the group opened its injunction in the Christchurch High Court.
Before Justice Lester Chisholm, counsel for Stop the Stadium, Len Andersen, said the issues in dispute included whether it was impossible to proceed with the project on the basis of the council's annual plan, and the status of the private sector funding, which was ''an important issue''.
He understood the main area of dispute was the council was saying it had not changed aspects of the stadium plans significantly, whereas the plaintiff's position was that it had.
The key points that were changed in the latest annual plan included the cost of $198 million, which previously was not to have exceeded $188 million.
''If you look at the plan you can say 'this is something the council is absolutely committed to'.''
The $10 million expected from the Community Trust of Otago had dropped to $7 million, and there was a requirement for a bridging loan, for private sector funding that would be ''coming in over a number of years''.
Mr Andersen calculated there was $13 million he said the public had not been told about, from the extra $10 million the project would cost, and the $3 million shortfall from the community trust.
''The extra $13 million has to come from somewhere.
''This is not something that has been made absolutely clear in the draft annual plan.''
Mr Andersen argued section 97 of the Local Government Act prohibited decisions that would ''significantly'' affect the cost to the local authority, if they were not in an annual plan.
He said the increase to the total cost of the stadium was $28 million: A $10 million increase in costs; $15 million for bridging finance, and the $3 million shortfall in Community Trust of Otago.
Ratepayer input stayed the same, but that was dependent on lower interest rates, and revenue being sufficient to cover the bridging loan.
The council had a policy on what was significant, which stated it had to consider issues including the present and future implications on the city, financial costs and the effect on levels of service
''The cost has gone up $13 million. This is significant.
''Having started consultation, [the council] can't abandon it halfway through.''
Dunedin City Council counsel Frazer Barton began his evidence at 3.45pm.
The plaintiff is the Stop the Stadium group and the defendant is the city council, which passed a motion at a meeting on Monday to sign the construction contract subject to the outcome of this legal action, The Christchurch Court News website reported.
Justice Chisholm has been presented with a great deal of written material as the hearing opens: the statements of claim and defence, a bundle of authorities, affidavits, submissions and a spreadsheet.
The Stop the Stadium group is opposing the council's decision on the following grounds:
* The contract for the construction is significantly different to the proposal for the stadium specifically set out in the council's Long Term Council-Community Plan, which is the operative plan.
* That the process of amending the plan and signing the contract has effectively deprived the community of its entitlement to be consulted before the draft is changed and any contract is entered into.
The Stop the Stadium group says it is accepted that the council can enter into the construction contract for the stadium based on the existing plan.
But it says the main area of dispute is that the council says the plan has not changed significantly while the lobby group says the changes are significant and the new plan should be put out for consultation.
The group says because of the changes and the increased costs, the council is prohibited under the Local Government Act from signing the contract before the draft plan is amended.
The statement of defence contends that the signing of the contract will not disadvantage people who want to have their submissions on the matter considered under the Local Government Act.
It is not clear how long the hearing will last. - with NZPA
