Despite substantial…

Despite substantial additional language in the PPS 2014 to clarify how to interpret and implement the PPS, ongoing confusion arises with existing language of Part III - How to Read the PPS whereby some argue, including before the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal, that all policies are of equal standing and need to be "balanced". Clearly, the totality of the language in PPS 2014 Part III can only be read to mean policies with a directive, limitation or prohibition have little if any room for discretion while enabling or supportive policies have some discretion - such that the directive, limiting or prohibitionary policies have primacy over the enabling or supportive and it is not a question of balancing them. Part III should be revised to clarify this.

Some argue that Policy 2.3.6.1b can include "temporally" limiting a non-residential use in a prime agricultural despite the fact the Permitted Use Guideline for Prime Agricultural Areas states “limited non-residential uses must be limited in area based on the land area that would no longer be available for agriculture”. A temporal limitation can lead to absurd results which have led to arguments for massive expansions to existing non-agricultural uses onto prime agricultural areas. Policy 2.3.6.1b should be revised to reflect the original intent as expressed in the Guidelines that such uses be "limited in area" and, that "existing non-agricultural uses seeking to expand onto prime agricultural areas" shall be limited in area in relation to the size of the existing non-agricultural use".

Some proposals for non-agricultural uses on prime agricultural lands contemplate reduced productivity, reduced soil classification and/or soil contamination of the lands. They cite there is no requirement in the PPS in relation to these outcomes. The PPS 2014 and Guidelines were drafted to respectively prohibit the removal of prime agricultural area for non-agricultural uses and to require that should an approved non-agricultural use discontinue in the future, any future uses must meet the prime agricultural area policies”. Clearly, both are intended to address the loss of prime agricultural areas and to allow reduced productivity and/or reduced productivity, soil class or contamination run completely contrary to the overall PPS goal (Policy 2.3.1) to protect prime agricultural areas for long term use - particularly given 2.3.6.1b is a discretionary exception policy (to Policy 2.3.1) with rigorous tests in order to be available for use. The PPS and the Guidelines should be revised to state that limited non-agricultural uses are not supportable if they result in reduced productivity and that the classification of the soils must be ensured/retained (in order to ensure the lands should meet the prime agricultural policies should an approved non-agricultural use discontinue). This reinforces why the PPS should be revised to expressly state that non-agricultural uses must be "limited in area".

Policy 2.3.6.1b4 requires an alternative location evaluation. Some have undertaken such evaluations without considering whether the alternatives are actually located on prime agricultural areas. The PPS and/or Guidelines should be revised to clearly state that any evaluation must include a specific criterion whether the alternative locations are in a prime agricultural area - and if not, to rank this fact a the highest priority/highest scoring criteria in the evaluation (since this is the fundamental drivers of this policy to begin with).

Part III of the PPS 2014 was specifically revised to speak to certain policies being considered in the context of the municipality or the planning area as a whole. Some have avoided considering or assessing proposals for the planning area as a whole. The PPS 2014 also included a new section on Relationship with Provincial Plans. The PPS should be revised to state that in areas of provincial plans (ie. the Growth Plan or Greenbelt Plan), proposals are to consider the geography of such provincial plans as the "planning area as a whole".