It is no surprise to anyone Mayor Jules Radich is pursuing his pet project, which he believes will help build up sand on the beach, but which some coastal erosion experts consider will be unsuccessful or cause more harm than good.
Last month the council voted by 11 to four on a motion requesting "an urgent report on the cost and time frames for reinstating the St Clair groyne, potentially on a trial basis".
This was a revamp of a motion which the previous council had rejected four months earlier.
The woolly wording of the motion had us wondering what might happen next, but at this month’s council meeting the matter was considered behind closed doors on legal privilege grounds.
Eventually, part of what was considered in private was released by the council, including the motion passed at that meeting which directed the staff to "proceed with an application for a certificate of compliance for reinstatement of the St Clair groyne from the Otago Regional Council and, if granted consent, proceed with reconstruction in the most cost-effective manner".
The vote on this motion was also released, showing Cr Jim O’Malley, who had voted for the November motion, was against this one, making the vote nine for and five against (it appears Cr Bill Acklin was absent.)
Since the whole of the discussion was in the council’s closed session, we were not able to hear what arguments for and against the proposal were advanced and weigh up the merits of them.
In a back to the future move, the original 1919 design has been trotted out and is being used as a basis for cost estimates.
The argument being advanced by the council now, presumably informed by legal advice which we are not privy to, relies on establishing that the groyne is an existing structure being repaired rather than a new proposal which would require costly and more time-consuming resource consent.
Already, a stoush is developing between the mayor and the ORC over whether the structure exists or not.
Appropriate perhaps in the festive season, although "Yes, ORC, there is a groyne" does not quite have the same ring to it as "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".
None of this is a good look and we wonder if any consideration has been given to what impact this might have on relationships between the two councils.
Is the possibility of a major fallout over this worth it?
Regardless of whether the structure does exist in any meaningful way, the DCC does not seem to be setting a good example, from an environmental point of view, by going down this track. It looks as if it is trying to avoid serious consideration of the environmental impacts of the "trial" groyne including whether, rather than improving the situation on the beach, it might make matters worse.
The proposal could well fall at the certificate of compliance/consent hurdle, but if it does not, there needs to be much more information, including a credible scientific assessment of this proposal, unsullied by the mayor’s views, and public discussion and evaluation of how it might fit with the thrust of Whakahekerau – Rakiatea Rautaki Tai, the St Clair-St Kilda Coastal Plan.
Where the money would come from is another conundrum.
The redacted document from this month’s meeting said if the council decided to proceed it would need to consider adding additional budget during the Annual Plan process and/or defer work on the coastal plan.
