We, all of us in King and anyone who is concerned about food security, climate change & water, have until September 30th to provide feedback to Minister Mauro (Minister of Municipal Affairs) about the Province’s proposed amendments to the Growth Plan (Places To Grow) and the 3 Conservation Plans. Your help is needed to encourage the Province to continue to place priority on better protecting farmland & sensitive natural areas (e.g. at-risk water sources), and pushing municipalities to build transit friendly communities with greater housing choices. The proposals include a number of valuable improvements. but there are some serious gaps which should be addressed. There are many ways to provide feedback; easiest is to sign this petition. Its important as you can be sure that those who do not put priority on protecting farmland, water sources, natural heritage features will be encouraging Province to ease up on the proposed restrictions.
First a brief review of how we have got to this point. Early December 2015 the Report from the Advisory Committee for the co-ordinated review of the Growth Plan and the 3 conservation plans (Greenbelt (GB) , Oak Ridges Moraine (ORMCP), Niagara Escarpment was released. (This panel was chaired by former Mayor and former MP David Crombie.) In May 2016 the Province released 4 proposed amended Plans. You can access the latter here.
There are positive features in the proposed plans.
The proposals include growing the Greenbelt with inclusion of 21 urban river valleys and 7 related coastal wetlands; and there some lands in Hamilton and Niagara being added.
The Province’s amended Plans show a significant improvement in recognition of the need to protect farmland and very importantly in supporting & promoting agriculture as a economic activity. A couple examples: the proposed amendments include a much expanded definition of acceptable activities on a farm including agri-tourism, home occupations,value added activities; trails adjacent to farmland need to discourage trespassing onto farmlands.
The amended Plans are very consistent with an urgency to respond to climate change. As context, the conservation plans point out that protection of natural areas is key to reducing and mitigating impact of climate change.There are proposed new policies requiring that new infrastructure and any upgrades require studies that will identify green house gas emissions, whether green infrastructure will be used. And there is a new policy requiring municipalities to develop storm water master plans for settlement areas informed by watershed studies. Given that conservation authorities now say that we have 100 year storms every year in different places (i.e. the storms are localized) I think the increased attention to storm water measures is very important.
The proposed Places to Grow has a new policy requiring that there be range & mix of housing types and densities. And it pushes intensification targets to 60% in the built up area; the latter is judiciously defined i.e. there needs to be appropriate infrastructure to support (sewage and water). And where there is major transit density needs to be higher.
And for those who read these plans it is truly wonderful that there is harmonization of definitions and terminology; specifically harmonized with language in 2014 Provincial Policy Statement.
So how could amendments to these plans be better?
The proposed amendments do not close the door to urban boundary expansion. The opportunity for expanding as been enhanced: rather than saying such can only be considered at the 10 year plan review point, it can occur whenever there is a municipal comprehensive review by the upper tier or single tier municipality. We need to stop paving the landscape. Municipalities faced with pressure from landowners outside the urban boundaries need a Provincial prohibition to help them refuse such applications and to force them to be creative and effective in how they use the designated greenfield sites and brownfield sites within their boundaries. Studies show that there is more than enough land set aside by municipalities to accommodate forecasted population growth for Greater Golden Horseshoe beyond 2031. (Definitions: “designated greenfield” is undeveloped land identified for development in official plans; “brownfield sites” are lands not used currently but previously developed.)
The ongoing risk to the Oak Ridges Moraine with fill being dumped is not addressed firmly. It is better but not adequate.
Effective implementation of the Plans continues to be at risk as the Province is not providing oversight and is not monitoring. e.g. Implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is the responsibility of 25 municipalities. For the smaller ones in particular there is inadequate resources; specific training is not provided and when a municipality is defending their interpretation of policy at an OMB, the Province does not support. e.g. the most comprehensive monitoring of what is occuring on the Moraine has been done by STORM, a citizens’ coalition. Apparently Province has indicated that these resources will be delivered; we need a firm timeline.
I wonder if there has been too much “given” to the farmers in response to the very real need to improve the viability of agriculture. I refer to the elimination of requirement for a natural heritage evaluation when development (i.e. construction of new facilities) is within the minimum vegetation protection zone of key natural heritage feature. I am going to see what I can learn about this.
And although I am very pleased with the harmonization of terminology and definitions I wonder if the “science” of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan has been weakened. Again, something to look into.
There are a couple ways to provide feedback:
Sign the petition here. It is formatted to send the petition to Premier Wynne, Minister of Municipal Affairs and other relevant Cabinet Ministers. Or, send your own email/letter. Here are names and email addresses.
Much has been achieved with the Growth Plan and the 3 Conservation Plans. We need to take action as our population is only growing. By 2041 the population in Greater Golden Horseshoe is forecasted to grow 42% to 13.5 million. What the plans have achieved can be “undone.” Or, if we take action our farmland, our water sources and our natural open spaces could be even more protected.
As I learn more I will post. It would be great if readers would share their thoughts on this very important issue.
Debbie, thank you for highlighting the importance of the Provincial Planning Review in your blog, and for sharing some of your initial thoughts on the Provinces proposed amendments.
I’m glad to see the proposal for the Greenbelt to grow to include 21 urban river valleys and 7 related coastal wetlands. However, I strongly believe it would be very helpful for protection of prime farmland and future smart planning in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to expand the Greenbelt to include Simcoe County, Wellington County, Northhumberland County and lands around Kitchener-Waterloo. “Leapfrogging” and urban expansion is very apparent in Simcoe already. There needs to be consistency in the approach to restricting urban expansion on productive farmland throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
I also agree with you that limiting consideration of expanding urban boundaries to a ten-year review is far better than the current proposal to leave this to a municipal comprehensive review. Larger urban areas need to develop in an efficient way with appropriate densities and design to support transit systems and a wide range of employment opportunities. Firm urban boundaries are helpful in striving towards innovative planning and design to create more complete communities and reduce sprawl on agricultural land and adjacent to sensitive eco-systems.
I look forward to reading and discussing your future observations and reflections.
J. Bruce Craig