The complaint emerged this week following the release of a Lakes Environmental agenda for the formal review of costs in the Jelley case being held in Wanaka on April 26.
Mr Matthews, a lawyer, charged $19,462.25 (or $325 an hour) for the 52 hours and 20 minutes he spent hearing a subdivision resource consent application by Mt Barker farmers Bill and Raylene Jelley last year.
Four legally qualified commissioners work for the council, with hourly fees ranging from $225 to $325.
Mr Matthews spent 40 hours deliberating on the case with second commissioner Lou Alfeld and writing and reviewing the decision.
Mr Alfeld, an urban design expert, charged $2089.
The total Lakes Environmental bill for processing the subdivision application was $33,998.18, with Mr Matthews' fee representing 57% of the invoice.
Although the application was successful, there was a substantial legal history, including several unsuccessful superior court appeals by the Jelley's neighbour, Wellington lawyer Mike Garnham.
Those issues were settled earlier this year after mediation.
The charges applicable when the application was made were increased in August last year but the Jelleys and their advisers did not seek a new estimate of costs.
QLDC corporate and regulatory services manager Roger Taylor prepared the council's submissions in response to the costs complaint, filed by the Jelley's surveyor, Matt Suddaby, of Wanaka.
Mr Taylor denied the council appointed its most experienced and expensive commissioner to hear what Mr Suddaby described as "a minor application", or that the charges were excessive.
Mr Taylor said the subdivision was not as simple as Mr Suddaby suggested because of zone issues, notification procedures, the submissions the commissioner had to read and site visits.
It was logical and reasonable to appoint a commissioner with legal experience.
Mr Matthews, Jane Taylor, Peter Salmon QC, and Trevor Shiels were available and Mr Matthews was appointed.
Mrs Taylor charged $225 an hour and the other three charged between $295 and $325.
Mr Matthews was charging the same rate he had charged since being appointed several years ago, Mr Taylor said.
Mr Taylor said he had asked another senior commissioner to review the time Mr Matthews took to produce the decision.
That unnamed commissioner thought the case was complex, involved "some tricky legal issues" and required familiarity with court decisions.
It would have reasonably taken about three days to prepare the decision, but he had not looked at all the documents to be able to refine his assessment, the unnamed commissioner said.
Mr Taylor did not agree Mr Matthews paid too much attention to the case because an appeal was likely.
He also rejected a suggestion ratepayers could subsidise a small percentage of the Jelley's case that represented public benefit.
