Affected property owner Kevin Kearney was to the point during a public hearing this week for the 2025-34 Long Term Plan.
He said the council had been remiss in not talking with the two impacted landowners before calling for public submissions on the future of Beach Rd.
"The council has failed to consult with us as the land owners who are most affected by this proposal.
"We raise serious concerns about the council consultation process to date — which has been totally inadequate," Mr Kearney said.
The council announced in November the road would not reopen.
It followed the Project Reclaim operation from August to remove two historic rubbish dump sites.
It resulted in two huge gulches under the road.
The two dumps, near the junction with Awamoa Rd were previously identified as an environmental threat due to coastal erosion — although the extent of the dumps beneath the road was less certain.
Project Reclaim also dealt with the former council rubbish dump at Hampden Beach.
Over 60,000t was transferred to the Palmerston landfill.
Councillors deferred any decision about the road until hearing public feedback in the LTP.
In November, councillors heard from council staff the landowners had been "talked to" at the outset of Project Reclaim.
There had been no clear budget to reinstate the road.
Mr Kearney, on his own behalf and his Rae family neighbours, said they were appalled.
The "correct process" for potential realignment would have been to "sit down and talk through the potential steps" with the landowners affected prior to the council going to the public.
Mr Kearney said to "fully realign" the currently closed section of Beach Rd, option A in the LTP, is their preference.
They would "reluctantly" accept closure of Beach Rd North to Awamoa Rd if option A was not feasible.
Mr Kearney noted options A and C "will require purchase of land from us".
He noted "significant assets" owned by the council along that stretch including the Kakanui water and wastewater lines, the Awamoa Creek bridge, and the road itself.
"The council has an obligation to protect and maintain those assets. It’s easier for the council to make decisions not to spend money, allowing degradation of assets. But the council needs to be forward thinking with respect to protection of its assets, it’s already invested in," Mr Kearney said.
Cr Tim Blackler acknowledged the challenge to use "forward thinking". He asked if the landowners were willing to work "collaboratively and constructively" around land acquisition. Mr Kearney said they would be "happy to move forward".
Cr Jim Thomson empathised over the communication criticism. "As chair of the roading subcommittee I would apologise ... consultation has not been a standard we desire on this matter."
He also noted an audit requirement meant LTP had to include a "preferred option" for Beach Rd which might suggest "predetermination".
"As far as I’m concerned ... there is no predetermination in what we’re doing with the road," Cr Thomson said.
The district council’s media and communications specialist John Palethorpe also fronted the hearing.
His written submission on Beach Rd said: "King Canute attempted to shame his sycophants by turning back the sea. I don't see why we should try and fight the Pacific Ocean, it's bigger than us."
On Tuesday he implored the council "to be brave", reminding it of the original decision to avert an environmental disaster at Beach Rd.
Project Reclaim was a good example of a decision that had "paid off significantly", but had not been talked of "sufficiently" to date, Mr Palethorpe said.
