The Warrington rocks will remain in place for now as the debate over their future rumbles on.
After nearly four hours' rigorous debate, the Dunedin City Council's infrastructure services committee yesterday agreed to ''temporarily divert'' traffic from an unformed legal road in the village while staff investigated whether permanent closure of the road, possibly by a bylaw, was justified.
The decision followed the defeat, on chairwoman Cr Kate Wilson's casting vote, of a recommendation to remove two rocks blocking the road so it could be reopened and monitored to ascertain whether it should be permanently closed.
The rocks blocking the short track to Blueskin Bay, north of Dunedin, were placed by the council in 2008 in response to some community concerns about the safety of the road.
The restriction is illegal as no formal road closure process was completed.
Lawyer Michael Garbett said it would be legal to restrict access to the road ''temporarily'' by leaving the rocks in place.
However, it would leave the council reliant on expert opinion to justify permanently closing the road.
Whether the road presented a safety or environmental problem, opinion was more easily challenged than facts.
While he advised reopening the road and gathering data for a period, ultimately the decision was a political one, he said.
''It's slightly perverse that to identify a risk we have to expose people to a problem, but that's the life of an elected member.''
The councillors' decision followed more pleas yesterday from some community members and the area's community board chairman, Gerard Collings, for the rocks to stay.
Councillors supporting the rocks' removal said the council had acted illegally and needed to correct that.
It also needed to have clear evidence the road was creating any problems before making further decisions.
Deputy mayor Chris Staynes said the issue had been emotive and the worst decisions were based on emotion.
It needed to be approached in a clearer and data-based way.
Mayor Dave Cull was concerned temporarily closing the road raised the risk of drawn-out litigation, and ''this thing going on forever and possible failure''.
The opposing and ultimately prevailing view was that the potential risks of reopening the road outweighed the potential risks of not having robust enough evidence to support any closure of the road.
It was a nonsense to see if someone got hurt to justify closing the road, Cr Richard Thomson said.
''Eighty-three percent of households there have signed a petition [to keep the rocks].
''I think we actually owe it to the community when that percentage of a community is sufficiently concerned about it, to take the time to think about why they are concerned and what that means.''
Mr Garbett advised the committee it should make a decision on the future of the road within nine months or leave itself open to a legal challenge.
The committee also asked staff investigate ways to protect the estuary from unsustainable disturbance, including considering whether the use of motor vehicles should be restricted along legal access points to the estuary.
Removing the rocks: the vote
For: Crs John Bezett, Hilary Calvert, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Dave Cull.
Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Richard Thomson and Kate Wilson.
• Motion lost on chairwoman Cr Wilson's casting vote.
• Cr Lee Vandervis absent for voting.
