IT'S fair to say it's a pittance compared to what is needed to replenish or even maintain erosion-crippled Stockton beach.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
It's been the only guaranteed renourishment works to combat the more than 110,000 cubic metres of sand lost annually due to erosion.
Better than nothing, residents argue, as they continue their decades-long campaign for a solution to buffer the peninsula suburb from erosion that has seen the shoreline disappear at the alarming rate of a metre each year over decades.
And when it comes to sand loss at Stockton - caused by the Newcastle harbour breakwaters and deepening of the shipping channel that trap the north drift sand at Nobbys instead of delivering about 41,000 cubic metres annually to Stockton - the times don't come much more desperate.
But now the Newcastle Herald can reveal that even the annual 30,000 cubic metres of sand delivered by the Port of Newcastle to Stockton has stopped.
The sand, from channel maintenance, is being dumped at sea after the legislation that allowed it to be placed by Port of Newcastle off Stockton using the dredger was revoked in June.
Under the new legislation "public authorities" are allowed to dump sand off the coast for renourishment, but the NSW government privatised the Port of Newcastle in 2014, with an Australian-Chinese consortium paying $1.75 billion for a 98-year lease.
The Herald spent three days last week seeking answers from NSW government ministers and departments about whether the port would be able to resume the annual sand dumping program, but they all failed to answer our questions.
Stockton Community Group co-presidents Alison Rigby and Melanie Taggart said Stockton was becoming increasingly vulnerable, while good sand was being dumped at sea.
Port of Newcastle acting chief executive Simon Byrnes said for sand nourishment to resume, approval had to be granted by the state.
Sand was last placed off Stockton by the dredger in June before the previous Coastal Management Act was repealed on 30 June.
Under the old legislation, Port of Newcastle was permitted to place approximately 30,000 cubic metres of suitable sand annually at Stockton.
When asked if the port would be granted permission to continue the sand nourishment works, the Department of Regional NSW, Department of Planning and Environment, Deputy Premier Paul Toole's office and Planning Minister Anthony Roberts' office did not answer the Herald's questions.
Mr Byrnes said the port would willingly continue to place the sand off Stockton if it was granted approval by a "public authority".
"Should a public authority obtain the relevant approvals for sand nourishment at Stockton beach, the Port of Newcastle is happy to recommence sand nourishment activities where suitable material is identified during the maintenance dredging program," he said.
The Department of Regional NSW spokeswoman said granting approval was an issue for Planning Minister Anthony Roberts, whose office did not answer if approval would be granted.
A Department of Planning and Environment spokesman said it was working with the Port of Newcastle, City of Newcastle and other stakeholders to ensure work to address coastal erosion at Stockton beach continues.
Ms Rigby and Mrs Taggart said they welcomed an explanation from the NSW government on sorting out the confusion.
"The community should expect and fear more land loss while these issues are sorted," they said.
"This is not acceptable as the erosion is known to be caused by NSW-owned port infrastructure and deepening of the channel. Stockton will be vulnerable over the summer waiting for the next east coast low and more damage caused by erosion."
The Newcastle Herald reported in December about another setback to getting sand on Stockton beach following a stand-off between the NSW government and City of Newcastle over a $6.2 million plan to dredge 300,000 cubic metres of sand from the harbour entrance and move it to south Stockton beach.
The project is stalled after Port of Newcastle confirmed extracting sand for beach nourishment was not permitted under its dredging permit and council and the state are at odds over who is responsible for the project and who will manage the works.
IN THE NEWS:
WHAT DO YOU THINK? We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on the Newcastle Herald website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. Sign up for a subscription here.
