The shock move, which also includes applications for modifications to commercial and industrial developments up to $50,000 also going to full council for determination, was instigated by former mayor Henk van de Ven and agreed to on a 7-2 vote this week.

Council’s planning department headed by director Michael Keys had been able to approve all development applications under delegation and only projects which had generated high community interest were presented to councillors for decision.

The $30 million Bunnings warehouse in East Albury is a recent example of approval by staff.

“As a council we had no input into that development application and any thoughts about potential impacts on infrastructure,” Cr van de Ven said.

“I know council staff would have taken that into account, but from a transparency perspective, we are the ones who have to make those decisions about what happens to our city in the future.

“They need to come to our notice more than anything else.”

The council approved development worth $171 million last financial year, but the average processing time for planning approvals climbed from 26 days in 2015-16 to 31 days last financial year.

The state average is 48 days.

The processing time blowout, which is expected to continue in 2017-18, can be partly attributed to planning department staff turnover.

Planning consultant, James Laycock, who put together the Bunnings development application, said council had embarked on a dangerous path.

“I am greatly concerned about the potential unintended consequences of this policy including increased development application processing timeframes and the potential damage to the existing strong positive brand of Albury and Lavington’s commercial and industrial areas as places to develop, grow, and invest,” Mr Laycock said.

“I think the intent of the policy is well meaning, which is for councillors to be more closely involved with future infrastructure planning.

“But this intent should be achieved in ways which do not have adverse consequences”

“This policy should be immediately reversed and only reconsidered in different terms and only when its consequences are reliably informed.”

Cr Alice Glachan said the system wasn’t broken.

“We could end up with a situation of applications being determined in an ad-hoc way,” she said.

“Unless we are growing and developing, we are standing still and reality would be going backwards.

“Our community relies on us to say to provide, as we say we do, red carpet, not red tape.”

Cr Graham Docksey was the only other councillor to speak against Cr van de Ven’s notice of motion.

“It worries me some councillors have the belief our DA approval time is too long as it is,” Cr Docksey said.

“This appears to me to add an extra layer to that.”

Cr John Stuchbery said he felt there was an “imbalance” in the size of developments presented to councillors.

“There is almost a $50 million Bunnings with a roundabout which has just opened, but didn’t come before us and tonight we’ve debated a $4000 basin (in a home business),” he said.

Cr Murray King also backed Cr van de Ven’s notice of motion, which he described as “essentially a trial”.

“We are important people in the organisation and having an application coming to us in its embryonic stages is as important for the developer as the council staff,” he said.

“In six months time if we find the workload is onerous and not effective then we can modify it.”