To: Ministry of Municipal…

To: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

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

This correspondence is to express serious concern with the Province’s recent Environmental Registry posting (ERO No. 026-0300) and to request immediate provincial direction respecting the duplication between municipal planning authority under the Planning Act and technical regulation under the Ontario Building Code.

The Province has clearly articulated its commitment to streamlining development approvals and accelerating housing delivery. However, the continued allowance of overlapping regulatory authority between Site Plan Control and the Ontario Building Code directly undermines that objective.

At present, there is a fundamental misalignment in how these two frameworks are being applied across Ontario - particularly in relation to, but not limited to, private site servicing, grading, and stormwater management.

The Ontario Building Code already establishes mandatory, enforceable standards for health and safety on private property, including stormwater management, sanitary servicing, and domestic and fire water supply. These are not discretionary matters; they are consistently applied across all construction and supported by a defined system of technical review, inspection, and enforcement. This also resolves concerns around “prescribed professionals,” as the Building Code clearly defines the criteria and responsibilities for design professionals involved in these works.

Despite this, Site Plan Control processes under the Planning Act continue to impose parallel and duplicative requirements through detailed engineering submissions and iterative technical review - most 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 not a minor inefficiency - it is one of the most significant and persistent contributors to delay in development approvals. It results in repetitive review of the same technical elements, conflicting direction between planning and building officials, and escalating costs driven by iterative engineering revisions.

In practice, this duplication is further amplified through Site Plan Agreements. By embedding private site servicing and grading requirements into these agreements, municipalities impose substantial financial securities for works already regulated under the Building Code. These securities are often conservatively calculated and held for extended durations, creating unnecessary financial strain on development projects and limiting the efficient deployment of capital.

By contrast, the building permit process provides a complete and appropriate framework for these works - without requiring excessive securities - while still ensuring full 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.

While the Planning Act identifies the importance of considering grading and drainage, its current application has clearly extended beyond its intended purpose, evolving into detailed technical regulation that duplicates the role of the Ontario Building Code.

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. Notably, the Building Code applies universally to all construction, whereas Site Plan Control is conditional - further reinforcing that health and safety matters should reside within the Building Code framework.

A further concern is the increasing reliance on Site Plan Agreements to extend requirements beyond the reasonable scope of the Planning Act. While statutory limitations may exist, 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 within the planning profession regarding “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 only to support green development standards, such as those historically implemented by the City of Toronto.

This interpretation is flawed and has had broader consequences. By treating “manner of construction” as a niche or exceptional 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. This approach perpetuates duplication and avoids addressing the underlying jurisdictional conflict.

The Province should explicitly 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 Ontario Building Code.

Given the Province’s stated objective of removing barriers to housing, this issue represents a critical 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, but not limited to, 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 circumvent statutory limitations or duplicate provincial requirements.
5. Address and correct the current misinterpretation of “manner of construction” provisions to prevent continued regulatory overlap.
6. During a line-by-line review of the Building Code, the Province should consider both: (a) removing provisions that duplicate Site Plan Control requirements if municipalities are intended to retain primary authority over private site servicing and related matters, or (b) providing greater clarity and specificity in the Code, rather than reducing requirements, if the Building Code is to remain the primary regulatory tool.

Without clear and decisive provincial direction, municipalities will continue to interpret overlapping authorities 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.