But the independent commissioner in charge of proceedings said he was confident there would be no conflict of interest.
Otago Housing Alliance strategic lead Aaron Hawkins, who is also a former mayor of the city, said he raised concerns about the appointment of Cr Sophie Barker to the hearings panel for plan change 1 with the council directly last month — but now found the situation "untenable".
"I’ve been a certified RMA commissioner, and hearings panel chair," Mr Hawkins said.
"The advice has always been very clear — you have to choose between being an advocate and being a decision maker, you can’t be both.
"You can’t argue in favour of more greenfields development, then sit on a consent hearing for a rural subdivision.
"Likewise, you can’t argue for greater protections for heritage buildings, then make decisions about whether or not to add more properties to the schedule."
Plan change 1 makes targeted minor improvements to Dunedin’s district plan (2GP).
The hearing for the first stage — addressing the Dunedin City Council’s proposal to protect 146 more heritage buildings — begins on May 19.
Councillors appointed a hearings panel of Crs Barker and Jim O’Malley and independent commissioner Rob van Voorthuysen, who will serve as chairman.
The alliance submission was neutral on the list of buildings proposed to be added to the heritage register but, noted where heritage buildings were used as residences or on sites zoned for residential purposes, public health implications should be considered — not just the "narrow scope" of only heritage values.
Mr Hawkins raised his concerns about Cr Barker’s appointment about 40 days ago.
"Her ongoing advocacy on heritage matters puts the integrity of the process at risk of legal challenge," he wrote in an email provided to the Otago Daily Times.
"For obvious reasons I would prefer not to raise these publicly, and we are keen to receive a fair hearing in May."
The response he received from a governance support officer about a month later sought to assure him Cr Barker would have an open mind "and no pre-conceived outcomes" when attending the hearings.
Yesterday, Mr Hawkins said the bar was much higher for those on hearings panels than it was council decision-making.
Cr Barker’s appointment should not only be of concern to submitters who were opposing proposals to restrict their own properties, it should also be seen as "bad news for our heritage champions".
"Because this conflict does no favours for otherwise entirely defendable decisions the panel may take."
Mr van Voorthuysen said Cr Barker was one of three panel members.
He "sought and obtained" an independent legal opinion given her previous public advocacy on heritage matters as a councillor and spoke with her.
Cr Barker assured him she "will bring an open mind".
"I am satisfied that Cr Barker does not have a conflict of interest, and that she will bring an open mind to her role as a panel member considering PC1 [plan change 1]," he said.
"As chair, I will also begin the PC1 hearing by reminding all panel members of their role and responsibilities, including the need to bring an open mind in considering submissions and in decision-making."
Cr Barker referred comment to Mr van Voorthuysen.
