• Protecting Water and Farmland in Simcoe County

Groups decry county’s Official Plan process, lack of protection for woodlands

By
In Agriculture
Jun 4th, 2014
0 Comments
2460 Views
Sprawl in Milton, ON - Wikiepedia

By Kate Harries AWARE News Network

MIDHURST – The public has been shut out of the process to approve Simcoe County’s Official Plan, the Ontario Municipal Board heard Monday in presentations from several citizens’ groups.

The groups – AWARE Simcoe, the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Farmland Preservation, the Everett Ratepayers Association and the Angus Ratepayers Association – also focused on a lack of protection for foodland.

Sandy Agnew, AWARE Simcoe’’s policy committee chair, told chair Sylvia Sutherland and panellist Mary Anne Sills that the group has been calling for public meetings since the county released a new version of its Official Plan in June, 2012.

“The legitimacy of the whole plan hinges on whether the public has a chance to have it explained with all the ramifications of the allocated growth to each municipality,” Agnew said, asking the board to order that meetings be held.

The county’s position is that public meetings were held, before the county approved the Official Plan in 2008 (which did not go into effect because it violated provincial legislation), and the new version the current council approved in 2012 is substantially the same.

Springwater mayoral candidate Bill French pointed to dramatic changes in population allocations.  “I don’t know how the board can consider significant population changes without public input,” he said. “Is that not effectively ignoring due process in the approval of a new Official Plan?”

Agnew’s presentation included a list drawn up by former Simcoe County planning director Ian Bender, itemizing two sections of the Official Plan where changes have been made that require public input under the Planning Act (Sections 17 (15) and 17 (16)) and another 21 changes that warrant public input.

Sutherland and Sills declined to deal with the issue. They also refused a request to have Bender provide information to the board to explain AWARE Simcoe’s justification for calling for public meetings.

From the submissions:

Bill French, AWARE Simcoe – “Should only the opinions of planners, land owners and developers who are focused on economic gain be the only consideration in what constitutes good planning policy? Please consider the fact that most of the expert planners present here spend a majority of their time designing high density urban space which is not exactly the landscape of most of Simcoe County. It is rural based and needs policies that protect the farmland and natural heritage in its Official Plan. Before final decisions are made with this plan, the public who will be impacted need to be engaged.”

Anne Ritchie-Nahuis of the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture – “As each generation moves further and further from the farm and farmers make up less of the Ontario’s Demographic the knowledge of the value of our farmland so to deteriorates. We see the SCOP failing the goal of protection of agricultural Farmland or more importantly Foodland. We see the Province failing in their oversight role on this topic though they much espouse that protection of farmland was their goal in creating the Growth Plan.” Ritchie-Nahuis listed specific clauses that needed changing to provide stronger protection for agriculture

Bernard Pope of Ontario Farmland Preservation – “It should not be the responsibility of the community to accept ill planned development and the resulting  higher taxation, solely to ensure the financial success of the speculators and developers, while loosing the capacity for local food production and agricultural prosperity.”

Chantale Gagnon of the Everett Ratepayers Association – “ERA believes that some aspects of the Modified Simcoe County Official Plan (SCOP) could allow for unsustainable growth (urban sprawl) in small hamlets such as Everett… ERA believes that no single party should request changes to the SCOP if such changes are not in the best overall interest of the County and in keeping with the aims of the Growth Plan. Thus, ERA feels that the additions and deletions proposed by Adjala Tosorontio to 3.5.10 and 3.5.n present a case in which a single lower-tiered municipality is seeking to impose criteria within a county-wide policy so as to pass a single plan (in this case OPA15).” Gagnon also had suggestions for change of specific clauses.

Previous coverage

County gets go-ahead for 12,000 of ‘bonus’ population

Truth comes out: Modified Official Plan “a fair bit different”

Leave a Reply

Commenters must post under real names. AWARE Simcoe reserves the right to edit or not publish comments. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *