My thoughts in summary are: …

My thoughts in summary are:

> There are an awful lot of references to "unlocking" land for residential development. The current planning structures do not "lock" land from development. They reflect a comprehensive review of land need based on an assessment of supply and demand across an entire municipality. I am concerned that the proposed changes could result in piecemeal planning with negative long-term consequences.

> There were changes from terms like "urban sprawl" and "low-density development" to "unmanaged growth". This is disingenuous and now makes the affected statements inaccurate. Sprawl and low density development can still be "managed growth". This does not mean that these approaches to planning will achieve the outcomes we want for our communities.

> Based on my current understanding, the province is allowing for local adjustments to mapping such as Natural Heritage Systems. I think this is a positive step as there are known inaccuracies at the local level.

> The adjustments to intensification and density targets undermine the purpose of the Growth Plan. The new proposed targets will only serve to increase congestion which is bad for the people as it is bad for the environment and bad for the economy. While there are variances in the nature of the communities across the GGH, they are a part of a massive pocket of population that is interrelated. It does not serve the region over the long term to have considerably lower targets in outlying areas. If the targets were too aggressive, there were ways that municipalities could request alternate targets.

Thank you for reading.