Mayor Liz Innes recommended the council consider the owners’ requests to help fund the study – of up to 50 per cent, or $10,000 – after meeting a representative of some landholders.

Owner Ian Hitchcock at the June 26 council meeting accused it of being “insincere” in its dealings with owners.

“The E2 zoning sterilises development,” he said.

“Did the council make a conscious decision to strip land owners of their property rights?

“I appreciate the mayor stepping in, but it’s too little, too late. The E2 zoning is un-Australian.”

Cr Innes hit back, saying the council had gone above and beyond in a dispute between landowners and the state government – and not all owners held the same views.

“My understanding is that advocacy from council to Minister Gabrielle Upton regarding property acquisition was at the behest of landowners,” she said.

“For the state government to consider acquisition, the land had to be zoned appropriately. It has given an option for landowners to consider.

“The council is genuine in its effort to try and get an outcome that benefits landowners and the wider community in a matter that should be between landowners and the state.

“Constraints around the land in question remain, regardless of zoning. I hope you understand these efforts are genuine. It’s not for council to use public money for the gain of landowners.”

Cr Innes said a study would benefit the whole community.

“There is significant public benefit and it is an example of council working in collaboration with community members to get outcomes,” she said.

Councillors Lindsay Brown and Maureen Nathan supported the mayor – but said a study of erosion in the Wharf Rd area would be premature, given the potential impacts of the proposed Batemans Bay bridge.

“I agree there is significant public benefit to the studies, but in the very long term,” Cr Nathan said.

“Historically, much of the discussion about Wharf Road has been about the effect of the bridge on sand and flooding. I wonder if the proposal of a study now is premature (because of new bridge construction).

“It is a four-year window in an issue that has dragged on for 30 years.”

Cr Brown said a retaining wall would be expensive.

“Retaining walls come at a cost – I can’t recall them being built in the state for quite some time,” he said.

“I do feel for owners – they took a punt and like all of us have to deal with changing legislation and policy.

“Regarding the presenter saying the group should have input into the tender process – I say to them, stump up the whole lot and you can make all the decisions.”

Cr Innes’ push to assist with the study was defeated, with all other councillors opposed. Councillor Phil Constable proposed an alternative.

“Given property owners are of the view issues are due to the training wall, council can write to the Office of Environment and Heritage on behalf of property owners seeking funding from the state," he said.

“Should property owners decide to self fund a study, council will provide technical support if required by owners.”

The motion was carried.