The primary purpose of the…

The primary purpose of the Central Pickering Development Plan was to "ensure that the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve remains permanently in agricultural and conservation use by fostering a healthy near-urban agricultural community that is self-sustaining, produces and sells locally grown agricultural products, and enhances surrounding rural and urban areas.
The Duffins Preserve was included in the Greenbelt Plan via an Order-In-Council, however, pursuant to the Greenbelt Act the CPDP takes precedence over the Greenbelt Plan.
A review of the CPDP makes clear that the contributor's to the plan worked very hard to protect the agricultural, natural and cultural heritage and value of the area covered by the Preserve and proposed to be removed from the Greenbelt by this government, in order to allow the expedited build of housing.
The voiding of the CPDP causes concern on both sides of the "build homes faster" scenario, by not only invalidating carefully considered prior action of many individuals, including a government, but by also removing due process on the construction side. This is problematic, and while one may point to the nearby Seaton development as some sort of precedent it is important to consider that Seaton was envisaged under the CPDP and the development of Seaton has been informed by the CPDP, with no undue financial duress suffered by developers.
Instead this government now sees fit to abandon all the considerations under the CPDP, which are much further reaching that the Agricultural Preserve itself, in order to open the Agricultural Preserve lands to development, without considered forethought as to what this development will look like.
There has been no replacement document for the CPDP presented, instead it is to simply be cancelled.
In addition to the loss of protection for the agricultural land itself there is also the loss of protection and consideration for waterways and water resources of both the natural environment and the existing Hamlets and small residential areas. There is no consideration, planning or limitations on the provision of infrastructure and roadways, or protection for the existing communities and their roadways, not designed for significant volumes of traffic., an issue spoken to in the CPDP. There is no protection of our cultural heritage, or First Nation heritage, within the area of the Agricultural Preserve, also considered under the CPDP. With the current proposal to "cancel" the CPDP there will be no instrument of, or requirement for, recognition and protection of these resources. And this is only a fraction of what the CPDP encompasses, the document reaches much further than the Agricultural Preserve itself and cannot simply be "cancelled" in order to permit development.

This government should not simply cancel a plan which was arrived at after long thoughtful and careful consideration and effort by many experts in their field, in a hasty effort to undo the central element of the CPDP, namely the establishment of the Agricultural Preserve, with no replacement legislation to ensure that all the other elements of the CPDP survive.
While this government may feel that the Agricultural Preserve, on the doorstep of, and complimentary to, the Rouge National Park, needs to be opened up to housing development it cannot forsake the fulsomeness of the CPDP and, in its reckless and wanton drive to cater to strong and persuasive commercial voices, completely negate the intent of the authors of the CPDP and the legislation around the CPDP, which are echoed in public opinion around this issue today.
Instead a measured approach should be taken and replacement legislation brought forward which demonstrates protection for existing heritage, cultural and natural resources within a new framework of development for the Agricultural Preserve, if that is the direction this government is intent on taking.
Comprehensive, Considered and Transparent Consultation.
We expect our public and private companies to act with consideration towards, and engage in consultation with, all constituants and affected parties, does this government really think the public expects less from the government?