This is in response to the…

This is in response to the amendment to the NEC plan:

I may be biased but I think your answers support my conclusion that planning does not work well for managing minor “development” (micro managing agriculture).

Specific to maple syrup issue I note the collection of sap by pails is very small scale and not done commercially that I know of. It also involves an ATV or horse drawn vehicle in the bush. Sap pipelines can work by gravity which means the location of collection point is dictated by geography and not designation or by a vacuum system which is still limited somewhat by geography and also needs power.
There are also economic considerations that will limit the design (assuming you are to make a return on investment)

My conclusion with respect to maple syrup is that a planning process for maple syrup will only work for small scale applicants with money.

The second area that your response raises, is interpreting existing use.
You suggest:
Under the existing framework, maple syrup tapping would not be permitted within the Escarpment Natural designation unless it was an existing use; under the proposed new framework, maple syrup tapping may be permitted as a new use.
Is the use general agriculture or maple syrup production? Is maple syrup production further broken down to tree tapping, collection system, and processing from sap to syrup?
Is it even agriculture if there is no commercial intent? Can it be considered a hobby (recreation) or personal use?
If the escarpment natural area is part of a working farm how is it decided if the escarpment natural area is not being used for farming purposes and therefore general agriculture is not an existing use?
The uses permitted for escarpment natural are very limited and your interpretation implies that if it is not listed specifically it is not permitted. I suggest that this does not work well when applied at a micro scale. The cost vs benefit of applying planning to matters of ever smaller and smaller impact is suspect in my opinion.
Consider the example of a landowner posting “no trespassing” signs on his/her woodland designated escarpment natural. It is not specifically permitted. There may be some use it could be argued it is included in, but that implies it could be argued they are not included as well. If they are nailed to a tree every 50 feet it could be as intrusive as maple syrup tapping and if posts are put in the ground for each sign are they then structures.

Looking at the proposed amendment from another perspective I think it shows a degree of incompetence at the NEC.
Planners supposedly have some flexibility to interpret plans and presumably apply some common sense. This amendment is in a sense saying the NEC planners cannot sit down and look at the intent of the plan and answer a question on use in the positive to landowner unless the plan has something very specific to support there position. This is impossible for all potential enquires given the structure of the plan. To be more specific the NEC could have simply said we can interpret the OFDUs permissions be extended to rural areas and not just PAAs without needing the amendment and they could have said ok to landowners asking about maple syrup production without needing the amendment given they are not concerned with the impacts (The NEC has not been going around charging people for illegal maple syrup production that I know of).

I hope you do not mind me saying but it is the farming communities use of planning to micro manage is a bad idea.