The current broad defintion…

The current broad defintion of "development" in the current PPS and the absolute prohibition on 'development in certain PSW's (s.2.1.4) is problematic. It is so broad it prohibits the construction of any building or structure that requires application under the Planning Act ----regardless of scope or impact.

In my view, the current policy is overly restrictive and leads to internal inconsistencies within the PPS. For example, s.1.1.5.2 expressly allows resource based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings with waterfront structures) on rural lands within municipalities. However, the joint operation of the definition of "development" and s.2.1.4 then work to indirectly prohibit what s. 1.1.5.2 permits.

I am requesting that the PPS be amended by adding the science based language found in the final paragraph of s. 2.1.5. to s. 2.1.4 so that s 2.1.4 would read:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E, and 7E; and

b) significant coastal wetlands,

unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural
features or their ecological function.

Alternatively, s. 2.1.4 could be modified to include language similar to that found in s. 2.1.8, such that it read:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E. and 7E; and

b) significant coastal wetlands,

unless the ecological function of the natural feature has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the natural features or their ecological
functions.

This balanced approach would ensure planning decisions on waterfront properties are made rationally and on the best available scientific information, instead of on the basis of current oppressive policy.

Hopefully this government is listening and will make decisions based on science as it did during the Covid pandemic.

Thank you