Comments on ERO 019-6813:…

Comments on ERO 019-6813: Review of proposed policies adapted from A Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement to form a new provincial planning policy instrument

The stated reason for replacing the existing Provincial Policy Statement is to address the housing shortage in the Province, i.e. the construction of 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years. In place of the Provincial Policy Statement the Province intends to introduce a new Provincial Planning Statement.

The existing Provincial Policy Statement is a comprehensive set of policies that guide the overall land planning process in the Province, aimed at achieving what is referred to as “Good Planning.” The proposed Provincial Planning Statement is a short-term response to the housing shortage, developed in crisis mode, without necessarily balancing the needs of today with the long-term need to have a livable, sustainable and prosperous Province (country and planet) today and into the future. Furthermore, new housing and associated infrastructure are costly to build, expected to last a very long time and very difficult to modify after construction; we need to do it right the first time. The current Provincial Policy Statement, together with associated provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan is meant to guide the achievement of these goals – let’s not replace it without considering the long-tern implications.

The aim of Good Planning is to determine the best use for land by considering and weighing the environmental, human and economic needs of society. This requires a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of the pros and cons of possible land uses with the fortitude to avoid options with short term benefits but long term disastrous consequences. This type of process does not seem to be reflected in the proposed changes to the current provincial planning framework. I, therefore, support the broad range of sectors that have offered their comments about:

• the abolition of regional planning and restrictions to the mandate of conservation authorities;
• land conversion that will turn expanses of natural heritage and even areas of the Greenbelt into housing and expressways;
• significant reductions of agriculture land and indeed threats to the future of farming;
• autocratic amendments to municipal official plans that will create sprawl communities that will both exacerbate the climate crisis and increase the potential of municipal fiscal insolvency due to reduced development charges;
• a weak framework for attainable and affordable housing; and
• the absence of any meaningful public and First Nations consultation on most land use planning initiatives over the last five years.

I further support the withdrawal of the proposed policies until further analysis is done. This must include both the required reports of indicators on the performance of the current Provincial Policy Statement and extensive consultation.

The following are more specific comments on the proposed Provincial Planning Statement.

Preface “This proposed Provincial Planning Statement takes policies from both A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe …” Not all policies currently in the Golden Horseshoe Plan would be captured in the proposed Provincial Planning Statement. They should be retained, not abandoned altogether by repealing the Golden Horseshoe Act as is proposed. This includes specifically items dealing with mineral aggregate resources.

“2.3.1.e Land use patterns within settlement areas … are freight supportive.” This important requirement should be satisfied by means of bypass roads and other means, not by allowing large transport trucks to use existing urban roads.

“2.8.1.2 Industrial, manufacturing and small-scale warehousing uses that could be located adjacent to sensitive land uses without adverse effects …” The determination of whether or not adverse effects are likely must be made in advance, by unbiased experts using scientifically based methodologies.

“2.9.1 Planning authorities shall … promote green infrastructure …” This should include green spaces, tree planting and other means to reduce the urban heat island effect; cooling centres; etc.

“4.2.2 Development and site alteration shall be restricted in and near … sensitive groundwater features
…” This is a laudable objective but the reality is that the proposed Provincial Planning Statement prioritizes industrial development over all other uses, even in protected groundwater areas – see for example the comments regarding mineral aggregate resources.

4.3 Agriculture

“5.3.5.1 Planning authorities may only permit non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas for extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources …”

Unlike mineral and petroleum resources, mineral aggregate resources are very abundant and distributed throughout the Province. Mineral aggregate resources do not have to be treated like mineral and petroleum resources, extraction of which trumps all other land uses. Furthermore, the proponent-driven process which the Province has instituted, along with the erosion of the role of municipal authorities and potentially impacted citizens, leads to a patchwork of gravel mining operations, fragmentation of prime agricultural areas, degraded environmental conditions and other adverse impacts. This needs to stop and replaced with a regime that allows municipal authorities to:

• establish buffer zones to protect sensitive receptors;
• establish mandatory requirements that aggregate companies monitor and report on air quality and noise levels, prior to and post start-up of operations;
• set limits on the fraction of total land that can be mined at any time;
• set limits on the minimum fraction of mined land that is not rehabilitated at any time; and
• establish requirements that community facilities (e.g. public parks, playgrounds, community gardens, naturalized areas) be created by pit owners and donated to the municipality as part of the rehabilitation phase.

The requirement that lands mined for aggregate be rehabilitated and returned to agricultural use (see below) generates an unjustified belief that gravel mining is an interim land use without long-term consequences to the land’s agricultural capacity and the Province’s sustainability. The fact is that, as the Ontario Land Trust points out in a 2022 letter to North Dumfries Mayor Foxton: “… removing huge quantities of rock and gravel results in permanent changes to hydrology and soils, and thus to the conditions which support particular crops and plant and animal life. Humans are simply unable to recover the agricultural and biodiversity values and the ecological functions that are lost when aggregate extraction proceeds. Rehabilitation must not be used to justify aggregate extraction in prime agricultural land and significant natural features.”

4.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources

“4.5.2.1 As much of the mineral aggregate resources … shall be made available … close to market …”

“4.5.2.4 Mineral aggregate resources shall be protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion …”

These provisions reflect the complete lack of reciprocity between aggregate resources mining and alternative land uses such as agriculture and housing. This is unwarranted because of the abundant and widespread distribution of gravel across the Province. As mentioned earlier, this is not conducive to Good Planning. As a minimum, the Province’s Land Compatibility Guidelines, which classify gravel pit operations as Class 3 industrial facilities should apply to gravel pit siting. The Guidelines recommend that such facilities be separated from sensitive receptor by a 1km buffer.

“4.5.3.1 Progressive rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, …and to mitigate negative impacts to the extent possible …”

Thousands of former gravel pits are now classified as legacy pits and quarries, without being rehabilitated by their owners. This further highlights the nonreciprocal nature of the way aggregate operations are licensed and overseen, relative to other land uses. The Province needs to establish time limits on the validity of new licenses, require a security bond from proponents as a condition to approve new licenses, and strengthen enforcement efforts, including using the security bond to rehabilitate the mined areas should the operator abandon the site or leave it dormant.