A decision has yet to be made on the judicial review of the Bingham Crossing public hearing process as presented before the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary April 26.
Judge R.G. Stevens said he was reserving his decision and though he didn’t give a timeline for when he expects to have an answer, he did say he would prefer to give it verbally rather than in writing.
“We are eagerly waiting,” said Ena Spalding, chair of the Springbank Community Planning Association (SCPA) one of the applicants of the case. Springbank residents Douglas Bulger and Nancy Desai are the other applicants.
“If he made a decision there and then we would have been happy,” said Spalding.
The judicial review request is for the Rocky View County council public hearing from Sept. 11, 2012, where council approved the Bingham Crossing conceptual scheme and amendments to the North Springbank Area Structure Plan,
She said the applicants also have another application going before the courts sometime in August to review the proceedings from the Oct. 30 and Nov. 1 Bingham Crossing public hearing.
The proposed Bingham Crossing development, is located immediately north of the TransCanada Highway and east of Range Road 33 in Springbank and will include a shopping area and senior housing development.
During court proceedings on April 26, the applicants’ lawyer, John Blair, argued the public hearing from Sept. 11, was flawed.
“Let’s have a do-over,” he said, adding that the people want a “fair hearing” so they can move on.
Blair argued that the amendment contradicts the core principle of the area structure plan created in 1979, states no commercial development should occur north of Highway 1.
He said because it would affect the larger community, the notification letters should have been sent out to a larger populous than just the adjacent landowners.
He said the county’s policy states that when staff sees a potential substantial impact, staff will err on the side of caution and send notification to the wider area. He argued that during a 2010 Bingham Crossing public hearing, it was brought up by a resident that more people should have received the notification, therefore staff was aware that the amendment proposed during the 2012 public hearing would have a substantial impact.
He also argued that roughly 200 emails from residents opposed to the development were dismissed by council and referred to as “spam” by one councillor and completely dismissed by another.
He said even though these emails were sent to council in a mass reply-all style, there was no specification in an advertisement by the county that group emails wouldn’t be accepted.
He also argued that council went against staff recommendations to delay the public hearing until March 15, 2013 so a context study of the area could be completed.
“(Staff) said wait until March when the context study was expected to be done instead of doing an ad-hoc thing and popping in one development,” said Blair.
Defense lawyer for the county, William Barclay, said the hearing was fair and there was no legitimate reason for the complaint.
“There is no evidence council failed to consider the emails,” he said, adding council isn’t bound to follow the recommendations of staff.
He said the emails Blair referred to were accepted by council and referred to a quote from Reeve Rolly Ashdown, who said during the hearing that he had read every single email.
“Clearly they were read and considered,” Blair said.
As for the notification area, Barclay said the county followed the requirements as outlined in the Municipal Government Act (MGA) and noted there was “quite a crowd” at the hearing.
He said the county policy Blair spoke of, which says to send notification letters to the wider area if there is the potential for a substantial impact, isn’t required by the MGA and therefore didn’t have to be followed.
As for the recommendation to delay the hearing until March for the completion of a context study, he said some people were against delaying the hearing again and quoted from a transcript of one resident saying he can’t keep coming to council to “make sure the community isn’t destroyed.”
Michael Theroux, defence lawyer for Bingham Crossing developer group, agreed with Barclay’s argument.
He added that since the original application was first defeated in 2010, there was “extensive consultation” with the public and by the 2012 public hearing, the neighbouring owners were in favour of the proposed development.
He said there was no suggestion by the applicant that they weren’t allowed to speak and said during some of the consultations leading up to the public hearing, members of the SCPA were present at some of the meetings.
