Although this draft is…

Although this draft is better than the 2023 version, there is still not strong enough protection for farmland.

Given that the 2021 census showed that Ontario loses 321 acres of farmland every day, and given that food costs, especially of imported foods, are rising, the Provincial Planning Statement must have stronger language to deter development from paving over farmland.

For this reason, and also for climate and human health concerns, I am opposed to the weakening of the requirements for expanding a settlement area boundary and/or establishing a new settlement area.

The criteria in PPS 2020, especially conditions 2-6, should be met and satisfied, not merely considered, before establishing or expanding a settlement area.
1. the need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses;
2. if there is sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities;
3. whether the applicable lands comprise specialty crop areas;
4. the evaluation of alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas and, where avoidance is not possible, consider reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas;
5. whether the new or expanded settlement area complies with the minimum distance separation formulae;
6. whether impacts on the agricultural system are avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated to the extent feasible as determined through an agricultural impact assessment or equivalent analysis, based on provincial guidance; and
7. the new or expanded settlement area provides for the phased progression of urban development

I am not in favour of a blanket approval to build additional residences on farms. It is idyllic to think of multi-generational or multi-member farm families wanting to all live on the family farm -- and indeed that is the case in my own family. But it is far and away an exception to Ontario farm ownership. The norm is for a single farmer (or farm corporation) to own what was once 4 or 5 or even 10 individual farms -- each of which once had its own farmhouse and family home. Very, very, very few farm owners need additional houses on their farms to house their families or farm employees.

So I'm calling out this provision as a backdoor route to urban sprawl and car-dependent development, which will have at least three seriously bad consequences:
1. loss of much-needed farm land
2. increased greenhouse gas emissions from transportation
3. increased cases of asthma, infant mortality, respiratory illnesses (see https://www.msn.com/en-xl/health/other/climate-initiatives-that-reduce-…)

At the very least, the PPS should return to the 2023 language: up to two additional residential units may be permitted in prime agricultural areas,