The hearing has become an argument between heritage activists, many of whom want the 1894 church building saved, and the mission, which wants to demolish it to build a facility it says would be far more suitable for the mission's purpose.
That was despite evidence the applicant, the Methodist Mission, could legally swing the wrecking ball through the building without consent, and that the church was protected neither by New Zealand Historic Places Trust listing, nor the council's district plan.
The trust's evidence, and its argument proper heritage investigations had not been undertaken, took up much of Wednesday's hearing, before Dunedin councillors Colin Weatherall, Richard Walls, and Andrew Noone.
Despite the trust's claim it and the applicant were not in conflict, Cr Walls appeared unconvinced, saying he saw "a whole lot of confrontation here, despite the pleasant words".
Trust Otago-Southland area manager Owen Graham prefaced his evidence by stating the trust's position on the issue.
The trust was not at the hearing to try to save the building, but it did not support its demolition.
"The distinction is: we need to know what it is we're losing before we lose it, and that hasn't been done."
Mr Graham said he felt it was odd that "various parties" had portrayed the trust as trying to save the building in some sort of blocking action.
That highlighted a distinct lack of understanding of the trust's role, and introduced an unreasonable level of bias towards its position.
He said options for retention, sale or adaptive reuse of the building had been encouraged by the trust, but "were seemingly rejected outright".
The only option presented to the trust had been demolition, which Mr Graham described as "a very difficult starting point for any discussions".
"So, if there is one major concern for the trust, it is the impending total loss of this very visible church building without proper understanding of its heritage values."
Trust heritage adviser Doug Bray told the committee the mission should investigate the possibility of selling the building, something the trust believed had not been investigated.
That would give a new owner the opportunity to retain it, which could complement the proposed village and give the mission a cash return.
Cr Walls said evidence had been given that selling the church was not an economic proposition, and noted a sale would give no guarantee it would be retained.
Mr Graham countered the emphasis some had placed on the building being listed neither by the trust, nor in the council's district plan, as a historic building, as that was not unusual.
Cr Walls said the mission had approached the trust on the issue, and he felt the trust had "led the applicant down the garden path".
Elizabeth Kerr, a heritage activist, opposed the application as a whole, as it related to the demolition of the church.
Contrary to other evidence on the building's values, she described it as an "expressive, ceremoniously detailed and warmly welcoming historic facade".
Ms Kerr called for a report on the building's condition, the extent of any remedial work required, and an assessment of its suitability for adaptive reuse.
She questioned whether the council could have sought independent reports on the matter, and suggested it could have stepped in earlier to consult, negotiate, and advise the mission on heritage, and taken its role as a heritage advocate more seriously.
In his right of reply, the mission's counsel, Phil Page, told the committee there was no application to demolish the church, as it was not outside the rules: "Your consideration starts at the site after everything permitted has been done."
