Dear Environmental Registry…

Dear Environmental Registry of Ontario,

I have been studying sustainable and liveable communities in Canada, and wish to address my thoughts on Proposed Amendment 1 to The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Growth Plan for the GGH states to manage the growth of communities and create liveable environments for all ages. Building a more compact and denser neighbourhood allows for a more efficient transportation system while reducing congestion. The current growth plan mandates that the minimum target density is 80 people per hectare, however, the recent changes propose that the minimum should be 60 people per hectare, which allows for a more spread out and liveable plan. Considering this, I believe the proposed changes are a great way to keep and create sustainable communities around the GGH.

However, considering the increasing population rates, I fear the Growth Plan may not be able to satisfy growing population numbers after 2041. The GGH Greenbelt protects a vast area of rural land around the municipalities, and expanding at low-density rates may not be beneficial in the long run. Furthermore, spreading growth, like unmanaged growth, may result in unplanned situations and imbalanced communities. Most communities in the GTA are getting crowded with rising populations, therefore, we can only expect more in the future. Planning for higher density communities seems more beneficial considering that GGH’s population can reach up to 13.5 million by 2041. Looking at Brampton, many areas are being highly dense, causing traffic congestion, healthcare frustration and service wait times. Planning for high-density buildings to house more people within an area can help to balance the overall region and create a more sustainable environment for the citizens.

When looking at the proposed changes to the Amendments for The Growth Plan, there are a few that stand out.

1.2 is further amended by deleting “a clean and healthy environment” and “social equity” and replacing it with “an approach that puts people first”.
3.1 is amended by deleting “lower density development” and replacing it with “unmanaged growth”.
3.2.1.2 is amended by adding “environmental planning”, by deleting “infrastructure master plans, asset management plans, community energy plans, watershed planning, environmental assessments, and other”

In my opinion, although considering people’s views on community growth is important, a planned and balanced environment is also important to ensure communities can still be liveable in the distant future. I believe in addition to sustainability, communities should also be balanced to avoid crowding and frustration among citizens. A balanced environment allows for easier access to services, transportation and quality of life. Therefore, “deleting ‘lower density development’ and replacing it with ‘unmanaged growth’” can seem like a disadvantage as there is no planning for an effective community system. Furthermore, “adding ‘environmental planning’” is a great way to consider the sustainability of the environment in a community, however, “‘infrastructure master plans, asset management plans, community energy plans, watershed planning, environmental assessments, and other’” are still as important and should remain in the Growth Plan. In conclusion, my views on the changes to the Growth Plan are that creating a more sustainable and liveable community is important, but it is equally as important to think about the resources and space needed in the future. The mentioned amendments should be removed or reconsidered to fit, not only present time needs, but those that might come in the future as well.

Thank you for your time and efforts.