Tag: Policy Planning

A new report from the Neptis Foundation is raising questions about Ontario’s planning and development policy for Greater Golden Horseshoe. The report states that 26,100 acres of green land, never intended for development, are being built on in contravention to the goals of the 2006 Provincial policy, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GPGGH”).

Saving money, helping the environment, and fostering more connected and better-funded communities – all were aims of GPGGH  and its efforts to reduce sprawl and preserve green space in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The GPGGH set out to ensure that at least 40% of new development in small municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe is only built on lands allocated for density with pre-existing infrastructure.

The GPGGH, which guides Ontario’s residential strategy for development and growth, draws a distinction between urban settlements, with full access to water and sewer systems, and isolated settlements that depend on communal wells and septic systems. The GPGGH made it a priority to concentrate growth in urban areas while limiting growth to isolated settlements without pre-existing infrastructure.

The latest Neptis Foundation report demonstrates that due to what appears to be a drafting error, the GPGGH along with the 2008 Built Boundary document, has resulted in unintended consequences.  As stated in the Neptis Foundation report:

“The definition of the Designated Greenfield Area in the 2006 Growth Plan states, “Where a settlement area does not have a built boundary, the entire settlement area is considered designated greenfield area.” Meanwhile, Section 3 of the 2008 Built Boundary document states, “The built boundary consists of delineated and undelineated built-up areas.”  This second definition allows for any development anywhere in a rural settlement, or UBUA [Undeliniated Build-Up Areas], to be counted as intensification, a stark contradiction of the definition in the 2006 Growth Plan.”

Municipalities understood this to allow development anywhere in their jurisdiction under the criteria of intensification.

In Simcoe County, for example, 65% of planned intensification took place in undelineated areas.

As these new communities continue to grow, resources will need to be added such as community centres, schools etc., which will assist a limited number of people and divert resources away from the larger population.

The Province wanted to increase development in areas that have room for density. This serves the purpose of establishing concentrated communities to better support both business initiatives in the area, while also facilitating greater access to transit, and community programs. A focus on denser urban development compared to rural growth is also substantially cheaper, as it is very costly to provide water and sanitation equipment to isolated settlements, far away from urban communities.

Since the Neptis Foundation’s report, the Provincial government stated that they are aware of the issue, are in the process of reviewing the GPGGH, and further amendments are expected.

If you need assistance navigating Ontario’s provincial policies regarding development and growth, are considering developing a piece of land, or have concerns about a development near you, Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Planning and Development Group can provide you with the guidance and support that you require.

“This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”