After a review of the…

After a review of the proposed amendments, the GPGGH is still considered to be an overly prescriptive and restrictive planning documnet for a slow growth area such as Peterborough County. Our local Township is located in the south east of Peterborough County with almost 80% of our land deemed agricultural. The sheer fact that the vast majority of our lands are protected creates a growth challenge and the added pressure of the GPGGH manifests that reality. We are located in the outer ring of the outer ring so therefore our growth development is far diferent in type and volume than those experienced in the inner ring. It is our position that Peterborough County be removed from the GPGGH. The PPS, official plan and supporting zoning bly-laws etc. provide adequate direction for growth that will ensure that lands are protected but at the same time allows a municipality to grow in a manner that's unique to them. A "cookie cutter" approach to an overriding policy such as the GPGGH creates undue hardships outside of the intent of the document.

Apart from the position that Peterborough County be removed from the GPGGH it is important for the Province to realize that upper and lower tier governments are in a position to be on the front lines of their own growth and development. Therefore, we have the hands on experience and knowledge that equips us with the relevant information required to make a sound decision that is in the best interest of our local municipalities. We need to have the flexibility to make decisions to ensure we are sustainable. This flexibility should include the responsiblity of approving, implementing and enforcing the Natural Heritage mapping in our area. If this responsibility is placed with the province or conservation authorities additional red tape and unnecessary costs to the residents will be incurred. Again, working against growth, development and sutainability.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments about this important decision.