She speaks of the desire to find a balance between an individual homeowner’s needs and rights, and those of the community at large. And there is no doubt that Westmount has an exemplary system in that regard. Our guidelines, our Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and our Planning Department all work in harmony and with great expertise to assure architectural quality, and respect for heritage and the streetscape.

But a spate of lawsuits between residents and their neighbours, and more alarmingly between residents and their own city, are red flags that perhaps all is not perfect in our little Camelot.

There has been a sufficient number of cases that have come forward (at least four recently) that a pattern is emerging. And what we see clearly is that there is someone who has been forgotten in the process, and it is you, the next-door neighbour.

This situation is, or should be, contrary to all that Westmount stands for. We are a small community that must show consideration for everyone, and that includes neighbours, if we are to live happily together and prosper.

Over 10 years ago, under Mayor Peter Trent, a policy was established that no project should benefit one group of residents at the expense of another group. The project that precipitated the debate at the time was the proposal to shift traffic from Cedar Avenue to The Boulevard. Following intense reaction from the 'Boulevardiers', the concept was recognized to be divisive in the community, and was shelved.

More recently, the City’s proposal to consider installing artificial turf in the Westmount Park playing fields met similar opposition from nearby residents, and was set aside in favour of natural grass.

The pejorative acronym NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) was suggested as the possible root of this opposition, in both cases. But, while some of the expressions of residents’ anxiety and dismay may have been exaggerated, their fears were legitimate.

What we are now seeing, as evidenced by the recent and current court cases involving home renovations, is the same phenomenon manifesting itself at the micro level. Obviously, the 'projects' are designed for the benefit of individual homeowners, and any negative effects are felt perhaps not by the community at large, but more specifically by the families who live immediately adjacent to the site, in the micro-neighbourhood.

But a neighbourhood is a neighbourhood, and a local community’s well-being must be protected regardless of size. One of the roles of municipal government is to protect the rights of its smallest members.

Westmount is a built-up city, and there is a reasonable expectation by residents that there will not be constant construction all around them (our family suffered seven consecutive years of noise, dust and vibration due to nearby projects).

More importantly, there is an expectation that our hillside houses that enjoy magnificent views of the city and the river beyond (some, for more than a century) will not have their market value diminished by adjacent projects, no matter how architecturally sound, that neglect to consider the local impact.

Well, what is Council’s role in all this? According to the mayor, the PAC makes decisions, and the role of councillors is simply to ratify that position.

This is where my opinion differs. The role of Council is to make an informed decision after consideration of all the facts. PAC is a non-elected advisory body to Council, as indicated by its name, and councillors cannot delegate their responsibilities to a non-elected body, and should not hesitate to question its recommendations.

Councillors are elected by and for the residents vis-à-vis the administration, not the other way around.

As of 2001, Westmount has had to comply with the articles of the Land Planning Act, and all building permit applications must be voted on by council. This is part of a system of checks and balances put in place to protect citizens and to assure good governance untainted by private interests. While the PAC may make recommendations based on architectural guidelines, it is the responsibility of Council to assure legal compliance and to consider both individuals and the community at large.

We will have to work on improving the process, to make it more transparent, more fair to all residents.

We need to eliminate the secrecy that surrounds building projects. It seems absurd that you cannot see your neighbour’s construction plans for the outside of the house, when after it is built it will be staring you in the face for years.

We need to allow input from neighbours in the planning process. Often, irritants can be eliminated easily if they are identified early in the process.

We need to make the process more helpful to residents who are contemplating a renovation project. The mayor points out that in1989, she applied for a permit and found it difficult to determine why it was refused twice; it was not clear what the PAC wanted. Well, here we are 20 years later, and residents complain that it hasn’t changed.

And if the guidelines are not sufficiently clear regarding the need to consider the impact of projects on neighbouring dwellings, then we must tighten them up. We should expect that the protection of the asset value of neighbouring properties be an integral part of the equation.

In fact, we should expect that any project that is not to the benefit of the immediate community should be denied.

As a consequence of our recent public and private exchanges regarding the process, Council will be meeting to undertake a review of the urban planning system over the next few weeks, with a particular emphasis on building permits and the roles of the various parties in the process. I look forward to these discussions, and hope that we can report positive results in the near future.

• Patrick Martin is city councillor for District 1, Commissioner of Utilities and a member of the Community Safety, Utilities & Environment, and Urban Planning committees.