Input from Transport Canada:…

Input from Transport Canada:

In section 3.4(2)c), the word "discouraging" should be changed to "forbidding". The rationale is that development on the land surrounding airports is always a sensitive topic. Provinces and municipalities are always trying to squeeze out every last acre of land for development. Airport Zoning Regulations (AZR) and Provincial Zoning Regulations attempt to put some controls on this but, from what we are hearing, there are an increasing number of circumstances where zoning in the vicinity of airports is not adhering to the AZR’s. While my point relates to safety, I suggest the highlighted word below be changed to forbidding. Discouraging is too weak.

The section in question currently reads as follows:

3.4 Airports, Rail and Marine Facilities
1. Planning for land uses in the vicinity of airports, rail facilities and marine facilities shall be undertaken so that:
a) their long-term operation and economic role is protected; and
b) airports, rail facilities and marine facilities and sensitive land uses are
appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other, in
accordance with policy 3.5.
2. Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by:
a) prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas
near airports above 30 NEF/NEP;
b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land
uses or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30
NEF/NEP only if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts
on the long-term function of the airport; and
c) discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard.

Section 1.6.9.2a) should read "(…) 25 NEF/NEP", rather than 30. The Transport Canada tehcnical standard for sensitve land use dvelopment is 25 NEF; in other words, Ontario has a higher tolerance for noise than TC does.

In terms of the Implementation portion, the second bullet should be changed, as follows:

From -
Require municipalities to undertake early engagement with Indigenous communities and coordinate with them on land use planning matters to facilitate knowledge-sharing, support consideration of Indigenous interests in land use decision-making and support the identification of potential impacts of decisions on the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights

To -
Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

Land use authorities and developers alike are encouraged to consider consulting with NAV CANADA’s Land Use Planning Program as well as aerodromes (airports and non-certified aerodromes) in their vicinity in advance of construction, and before official documents/authorization/permits are issued.

While some airports have Airport Zoning Regulations, both permanent (e.g. high-rises, cell towers) and temporary structures (e.g. construction cranes) well outside the boundary specified in the regulation can impact on the usability of a particular runway or the ability for certain aircraft to take-off and land at a given airport. Additionally, some land uses can impact on the sensitive air navigation equipment that is relied upon to safely land such as during inclement weather.

The safety and efficiency of the aviation system, which contributes to local economies and the movement of people and goods, relies on the cooperation of all parties involved in land use planning and development to take action on the concerns raised by airport operators and technical experts at NAV CANADA.

With respect to Section 3.4, part 2a and 2b which references Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) / Noise Exposure Projection (NEP), Transport Canada notes that the use of NEF/NEP mapping is a voluntary undertaking for airports. While most major airports have NEF contours in place, smaller airports may not. Sensitive land uses and development around an airport of any size, without or without a NEF, may have impacts.

For any questions on the aforementioned input, please contact Sarah Jardine (Standards, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada)