A group of Calgarians from the Springbank Hill community on the city’s west side suffered a loss in court on Monday but scored a victory at city council chambers on Tuesday. The group, Concerned Residents of Springbank Hill, are protesting a 42-unit townhouse project on a parcel of vacant land that was originally approved for 16 single-family homes. The residents have expressed concerns the Augusta Villas townhomes would bring excessive density, traffic, parking issues and shadowing impacts to their neighbourhood, while the developer maintains the project follows city planning rules and adds housing diversity near transit and amenities. More than 800 people have signed a petition opposing the plan, which was approved by the Calgary Planning Commission in July, despite the widespread opposition. While the development itself is being opposed, at the heart of the matter is the group’s argument they have had no representation on city council since Ward 6 Cllr. Richard Pootmans resigned his seat on council last fall due to health issues. According to the group, the lack of ‘official’ representation in their area could permanently alter their community, although Ward 6 concerns were divided by Cllrs. Sonya Sharp and Courtney Walcott since Pootmans' departure. The residents maintained neither Sharp nor Walcott have an extra vote on council on their behalf. .A public hearing on the development was scheduled for Tuesday. with the group threatening legal action if the public hearing wasn’t moved to after the Oct. 20 election, when a new Ward 6 councillor will be elected. The demand was refused by council, so on Sept. 5, members of the group were in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, after filing an injunction against the city over the development, with a hearing of the matter carried over to Monday, where the group lost their bid to delay council’s vote on the proposed townhouse project, clearing the way for the rezoning hearing to proceed. Lawyers for the city argued the Springbank Hill residents had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an injunction. They also argued councillors are required to approach decisions with an open mind and to represent the interests of the municipality as a whole, without bias to their individual wards. In his judgement, Justice D.R. Mah ruled the applicants did not have a legitimate legal claim, noting there is no legal right to a ward councillor. He added council could still vote in residents’ favour. In the event that council approved the project, Mah said residents could still challenge the project during the development permit process or via judicial review. .On Tuesday, a number of residents attended council’s public hearing meeting to raise their concerns, but their plans were cut short by Cllr. Sharp, who, at the opening of the meeting, proposed an amendment to the Springbank Hill hearing. Considering a lack of Ward 6 representation, Cllr. Sharp moved that the hearing be held after the Oct. 20. election. The motion was approved unanimously by council, to great applause by the Springbank Hill residents, even though Mayor Gondek admonished them, saying, “We don’t do that in council chambers”.
