by SUSAN MANN
Urban municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe wanting to expand their boundaries will face stricter requirements before being able to encroach on neighbouring farmland, according to new provincial government proposals.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Don McCabe applauds the government’s move to increase the targets municipalities have to meet when permitting housing and infrastructure construction within their own boundaries before they can look “to expand onto new territory.”
Ontario Agriculture Minister Jeff Leal says in an emailed statement from his press adviser the proposals help “to ensure farms continue to flourish in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.”
Released Tuesday, the Ontario government proposals are in response to the recommendations of the Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 2015-2041 report released last year and the public input received in connection with that report. An advisory panel chaired by former Toronto mayor David Crombie did the report reviewing four land use plans in Ontario.
The plans are – the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan.
Considered to be Canada’s fastest growing urban region, the Greater Golden Horseshoe is wrapped around the western end of Lake Ontario. Its outer boundaries stretch north to Georgian Bay and south to Lake Erie.
Population in the region is projected to grow to 13.5 million people in 25 years, from nine million people currently. The number of jobs is forecast to grow to 6.3 million in 25 years from 4.5 million now, the Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe report says.
Farmland makes up half of the land area of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the agricultural industry is one of the most important economic sections of the region.
The Planning for Health report notes the four land use plans that were reviewed provide a framework to accommodate population and employment growth along with protecting vital assets, such as high quality farmland, water resources and natural areas.
Leal says the advisory panel’s recommendations “support agricultural viability and farmland preservation by setting strict limits on the expansion of urban areas while allowing more flexibility for agriculture use in the Greenbelt.”
McCabe says the government proposals released Tuesday recognize “agriculture as a significant land use (within the Greater Golden Horseshoe) and therefore it should be protected.”
“The Provincial Policy Statement of 2014 is somewhat of a base for part of this action,” he notes.
In its set of proposals, the Ontario government says it would be required to “identify an agricultural system for the Greater Golden Horseshoe that builds on the Greenbelt” and it would do that in collaboration with municipalities. The municipalities “would be required to plan and protect the agricultural system’s long term viability.”
The types of uses allowed on the agricultural lands would be clarified by making the four plans’ policies consistent with those in the Provincial Policy Statement.
McCabe says the language in the four land-use planning documents will also be harmonized “to ensure greater clarity and integrity.” Currently language in the documents is misleading or “just plain confusing.”
If the government changes are approved, the four planning documents “will have the same words meaning the same thing,” he says.
The government proposals say the plans would support the agricultural sector by clarifying when and how new or expanded agriculture and related uses, such as farm sheds, would be permitted next to natural heritage features, such as wetlands, woodlands, streams and inland lakes.
Furthermore, to minimize the impact infrastructure or other development could have on farming operations, the government suggests municipalities and infrastructure proponents should do agricultural impact assessments before new projects are launched or settlement areas expanded.
About the proposals to expand the Greenbelt, McCabe says those should not impact the agricultural industry.
“There could be some private properties that are involved in some of those regions. However, there aren’t any exact details yet to be able” to know what the impact will be, he says.
The proposals call for 21 major river valleys and seven associated coastal wetlands to be added to the Greenbelt Plan’s “urban river valley” designation. In addition, four parcels of land in the City of Hamilton and Niagara Region would be added to the Greenbelt Plan’s “protected countryside” designation.
The Greenbelt has almost two million acres of protected land, including the Niagara Escarpment, Oak Ridges Moraine and protected countryside located in the centre of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Greenbelt Plan protects important ecological and hydrological systems, prime farmland, rural and specialty crop areas.
The government is seeking comment on its proposals. Information on how to comment is available here:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page14851.aspx.
There will also be several government-sponsored open houses so people can learn more about the proposals. Information about those sessions is available here:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page14854.aspx. BF
Comments
IT IS ABOUT TIME THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT WAKES UP AND PROTECTS VALUABLE FARM LAND BEFORE IT IS ALL UNDER PAVEMENT! I TRAVEL EVERY WEEK TO OUR WARE HOUSES IN TORONTO ,THE BULDING THAT IS GOING ON IN THE GTA IS UNBELEAVABLE. MASSIVE SUBDIVIONS,CONDO'S, AND SHOPPING CENTRE,THEIR IS SO MUCH LAND WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED BEFORE ANYMORE FARM LAND IS USED.THEIR IS 100rds OF SITES UNTOUCHED STILL TO BE DEVELOPED,HOPEFULLY THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE TRUE TO IT'S ANNOUNCEMENT AND STOP EATING UP GOOD FARMLAND! THE ONLY FARMERS THAT THIS NEW POLICY WILL UPSET IS THE ONES WANTING TO SELL THEIR LAND TO THE DEVELOPERS! THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO FURTHER AND FREEZE ALL DEVELOPMENT NOW UNTIL EVERY SPACE WITHIN CITY BOUNDARYS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED! MY ADVICE TO GOV WOULD BE THAT ALL FARMERS HAVE TO PROVE THE NEED FOR GROWTH WHEN APPLYING FOR LAND USE AND BUILDING PERMITS JUST LIKE EVERY DEVELOPER HAS TO,EVEN MORE WHEN IT IS ON OR IN PROTECTED AREA'S AND FREEZE ALL FARMLAND DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN PROTECT OUR FARMLAND FROM DEVELOPMENT,IF WE DO NOT TAKE THESE STEPS WE WILL NOT HAVE THE LAND TO GROW OUR FOOD FROM! IT IS LONG OVER DUE,PROTECT ALL FARMLAND FROM DEVELOPMENT OR ELSE WE WILL RELY ON OTHER COUNTRIES TO SUPPLY OUR FOOD! WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TO LATE ,THESE LAND CHANGE POLICY ONLY HURTS THE GREEDY FARMERS AND THE RICH DEVELOPERS! PUT A STOP TO BOTH,PROTECT OUR FOOD SUPPLY! BILL DENBY IMPORTER/ EXPORTER
Or else we will rely on other countries?
80% of our food comes from other countries now. Why? Because it is cheaper to import than to produce in this country. There are only 30,000 active farmers left in this province. Saving the land does nothing to save agriculture. The gov't is doing nothing to save farmers. They are actually do everything they can to get rid of farmers. So if a farmer can get more money by selling his land to grow houses, I say more power to him. Land and labor is cheaper in China to produce the food we need, the food we are already buying.
Land and water is much more expensive in China Labor is much cheaper in China and the safety standards for the food and workers are much lower I was there in 2000 I will pay more for food not made in China Stephen Webster Blyth On.
Do you know how much land in China is worth? If it is so expensive, why are the rural people, farmers included, abandoning the land to migrant into the urban areas?
The last thing we need is more self righteous do-good policies that restrict commercial agriculture's ability to innovate in the face of rapidly changing global markets and technology in the pursuit of a small scale, antiquated, anti-technology, "Old Macdonalds myth"
Get used to it Bill. The proof is in the pudding sir. The GEA gobbles up approx. 3 ac. per intermittent generating wind turbine is being pushed by foreign developers plus a compliant government and you guessed it a few stand aside farm organizations. The very same farm organizations are so up in arms up new aggregate development yet they say nothing about taking 3ac. per useless wind turbine that produces power we don't need.
Land development should go to whatever generates the most economic activity.
Raube Beuerman
Why should farmers save the farmland to produce food at or below the cost of production? Farm organizations should give their head a shake.
Farmers cant save farmland only sound economics will save it. Government will lock it into a permanent designation and over time most of it will become 100 acre estate residential.
Some live in a fantasy world farmers deal in reality.
The gov. need to come up with a plan to provide housing encourage 7 to 12 story towers better transit and time of day toll roads in the GTA. This must be done before a freeze is done. many working people can not afford house prices going up 4 times since the green belt came in. A upgraded water sewers and hydro and roads to handle the people need to happen as the infilling happens. Stephen Webster Blyth On.
Why not just buy a farm complete with house in the countryside and rent out the land?
That's the GTA. Every small town in Ontario has cheap housing with lawns littered with "For Sale" signs on them. Housing is cheap in small town Ontario because agriculture needs less farmers. Farmers that supported the local businesses are different today than they were 50 years ago.
Every small town has sewers, hydro water and roads but population density is shrinking and moving to urban areas. There is little need to build your big towers, our 'leaders' just need to recognize present infrastructure that exists outside the GTA. Our gov't is not supporting small town Ontario.
There are many more jobs paying $25.00 To $35.00 per hour in the city than in small town Ontario. I agree that this Ontario govt. is not supporting small town Ontario. With better transport and cell phones we need less people in rural Ontario.
The same controls that are intended to protect development from encroaching on neighbouring farmland may also have unintended, bitter consequences for commercial farmers who are faced with the challenges of innovation in the face rapidly changing technology and global markets. Without a clear and realistic vision of what tomorrow's commercial agriculture will really look like, it is highly likely that the current policy development exercise will proceed to develop policies aimed at supporting a mythological agriculture of yesterday's technology and local markets.
The current tendency to move public policy in directions that better serve small scale agriculture and local markets is not a bad thing in itself. However, we need also to be moving in a direction that promotes the commercial sustainability of the other 95% of agriculture.
This will only happen with a clear picture of tomorrow's commercial agriculture that can only come from today's commercial farmers. This is a job for farm organizations -- OFA, CFFO, GFO, etc. We cannot expect politicians and bureaucrats to come up with a vision of agriculture that is up to the job.
Post new comment