Re: ERO No. 026-0300 – Site…

Re: ERO No. 026-0300 – Site Plan Control and Building Code Authority

This correspondence is to express concern with the Province’s Environmental Registry posting (ERO No. 026-0300) and to request clear provincial direction on the division of authority between the Planning Act and the Ontario Building Code.

The Province has committed to streamlining development approvals and accelerating housing delivery. However, the continued overlap between Site Plan Control and Building Code authority directly undermines that objective.

At present, there is a fundamental misalignment in how these frameworks are applied across Ontario, particularly in relation to private site servicing, grading, and stormwater management. The Ontario Building Code already establishes mandatory and enforceable standards for health and safety on private property, including stormwater management, sanitary servicing, and water supply (Only certain components of these need to be addressed during SPA). These requirements are consistently applied through a defined system of technical review, inspection, and enforcement, supported by qualified design professionals.

Despite this, Site Plan Control processes continue to impose parallel technical review through detailed engineering submissions, often led by municipal public works departments. The recent ERO language reinforcing municipal authority to consider “health and safety” matters, such as stormwater management, risks further entrenching this duplication.

This overlap is a significant contributor to delay in development approvals. It results in repeated review of the same technical elements, conflicting direction between planning and building functions, and increased costs driven by iterative engineering revisions.

In practice, duplication is further amplified through Site Plan Agreements. By embedding above and beyond minimum code requirements for private servicing and grading into these agreements, municipalities require substantial financial securities for works already regulated under the Building Code. These securities are often conservatively calculated and held for extended periods, placing unnecessary financial strain on development projects and limiting the efficient use of capital.

By contrast, the building permit process provides a complete and appropriate framework for these works without requiring excessive securities, while still ensuring compliance through inspection and enforcement. Shifting these matters fully into the building permit process represents a clear opportunity to reduce costs and accelerate delivery without compromising health and safety, or land feasibility.

While the Planning Act identifies the importance of grading and drainage, its application has extended beyond its intended purpose and into detailed technical regulation. There is a clear distinction in legislative intent that is not being upheld in practice: the Planning Act is intended to address land use compatibility and site feasibility, whereas the Ontario Building Code is intended to regulate construction and ensure health and safety. Allowing both frameworks to regulate the same technical matters on private property creates redundancy, uncertainty, and delay.

A further concern is the increasing reliance on Site Plan Agreements to extend requirements beyond the reasonable scope of the Planning Act. Agreements are frequently used to impose conditions that would not otherwise be defensible, resulting in inconsistent application, reduced transparency, and regulatory overreach.

Additionally, there is a persistent misinterpretation of “manner of construction” authorities under Section 41(4.1) of the Planning Act and Section 35 of the Building Code Act. These provisions are often narrowly characterized as tools intended primarily for green development standards. This interpretation is flawed and has broader consequences. By treating “manner of construction” as a limited tool, municipalities continue to regulate core construction elements—such as grading, drainage, and servicing—through Site Plan Control rather than recognizing their proper jurisdiction under the Building Code.

The Province should clarify that “manner of construction” is not a limited or municipality-specific tool, and that Site Plan Control and associated agreements are not to be used to regulate construction elements already governed by the Building Code.

Given the Province’s stated objective of removing barriers to housing, this issue represents a clear and immediate opportunity for meaningful reform.

Accordingly, we request that the Province:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review of the division of authority between the Planning Act and the Ontario Building Code, including matters such as private site servicing and grading.
2. Clarify, through legislation or regulation, that technical health and safety matters on private property are to be governed primarily through the Building Code.
3. Limit the scope of Site Plan Control to land use compatibility, urban design, and site feasibility.
4. Provide clear direction on the appropriate use of Site Plan Agreements, ensuring they are not used to duplicate provincial requirements or circumvent statutory limitations.
5. Address and correct the current misinterpretation of “manner of construction” provisions to prevent continued regulatory overlap.
6. During any line-by-line review of the Building Code, consider both:
a) removing provisions that duplicate Site Plan Control requirements if municipalities are intended to retain authority over these matters; or
b) providing greater clarity and specificity in the Code if it is to remain the primary regulatory tool.

Without clear provincial direction, overlapping authorities will continue to be interpreted in a manner that increases cost, delay, and complexity—directly undermining the province’s housing objectives.

We urge the province to take immediate action to restore clarity, consistency, and efficiency in the development approvals framework.

Respectfully,