At the strategy, planning and engagement committee meeting on Wednesday, members discussed the latest government Bill designed to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA).
Committee chairwoman Cr Sophie Barker said while parts of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill were welcome, she was "extremely concerned" about a proposal to remove elected officials from some parts of the planning process.
"We have a government that, before the election, talked about localism and now is trying, it appears, to exclude councillors who are RMA commissioners.
"This reform is something that is just going too fast and possibly not in a considerate manner — that's making it very difficult for us as councillors to respond to."
The proposals meant "more work, more costs, less control" for local councils which bore the brunt of RMA changes, she said.
"Death by a thousand cuts and I think that's why we have to be extremely vigilant when we are having all of these Bills come through.
"The loss of local voice would just be something terrible."
The RMA was intended to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, with most decision-making left to councils.
This was the second amendment Bill introduced by the coalition government after it repealed legislation the previous Labour government had introduced to replace the RMA.
Ultimately, the coalition government intended to replace the RMA with two new Acts.
Cr Barker was referring to the Bill’s proposed change to the streamlined planning process panels which were used to achieve outcomes faster than traditional plan changes.
It is proposed elected members of the local authority cannot be elected to these panels.
Cr Jim O’Malley said the change would take decisions out of the hands of local government.
"This is the planning equivalent of Three Water. It's come out of the previous government. It's been dressed up again by another government. But the common theme in both cases has been removal of local control and people in Wellington know better when it comes to design, which is something that we'll have to be staunch about as this goes forward."
Cr David Benson-Pope said the government’s proposals were "contrary" to the best interests of Dunedin residents.
"In many ways, I think they reflect a lack of awareness of what's actually happening on the ground and, I guess, the doctrinaire belief that it's all wrong and needs fixing."
Cr Christine Garey criticised the Bill’s short submission period and said the proposals were a "mixed bag".
The committee retrospectively approved the council’s submission. The council asked to speak to their submission.
