‘Good to Go’ policy allows Simcoe County municipalities to exceed province’s population figures

By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe May 16 2012

Simcoe County politicians have been told they don’t need to worry about the population numbers the province has allocated to each municipality as part of its plan to keep growth to a maximum of 667,000 people by 2031.

County planning director David Parks last week said a “Good to Go” policy is part of Amendment 1 and means that population forecasts do not apply to settlement areas where a municipality has designated land for future urban use, as of January 19, 2012.

 “You can go outside, you don’t have to worry about, you don’t have to think about your population projections that were given,” Parks told members of the county’s corporate services committee last Wednesday.

“So, no restrictions on population within the settlement boundaries  … we’re quite excited about that.”

At a meeting later that day with AWARE Simcoe, Parks said the number of 667,000 in 2031 still applies. That was confirmed by the province.

The contradiction is one of the inherent flaws in Amendment 1, said AWARE board member Sandy Agnew, one of the group’s observers at the committee meeting.

Parks told councillors that Section 6.3.2 of the province’s amended growth plan, which allows approval of development “in excess of what is needed to accommodate the forecasts,” can apply to 91 communities identified as settlement areas. 

“A significant amount of those settlement areas have lands that are designated for future urban employment, industrial, residential, whatever it is – they are free and clear to go in excess of any population,” he said. “I don’t think a lot of people realize this.”

Parks cited Stayner and Coldwater as examples of two communities where “they don’t have to worry about those numbers at all to constrain their growth… whatever numbers they have, they’re not part of it – that’s huge!”

AWARE Simcoe representatives met with infrastructure ministry officials last week and were told that the population forecasts in Amendment 1 remain in effect.

“They said the numbers are the same,” said Agnew. The AWARE team travelled to Toronto to express concern at contradictions within Amendment 1, and at the approach outlined in Parks’ corporate services presentation.

AWARE Simcoe supports the province’s desire to direct growth to primary settlement areas. These are Barrie, Orillia, Midland-Penetanguishene, Collingwood, Alliston, Bradford and Alcona. But the group supports strict controls on growth in the 91 settlement areas – the smaller rural towns and villages that are on the cutting edge of sprawl. 

In a follow-up interview this week, senior policy adviser David Black said Section 6.3.2.1 – allowing development in excess of forecasts – must be read in conjunction with Section 6.1, which states that the intent of the policy is that by 2031 development for all the municipalities within Simcoe County will not exceed the province’s overall employment and population forecasts.

He said allowing approval of development in excess of forecasts in settlement areas gives municipalities flexibility so they can de-designate “legacy approvals” – proposed developments that should not go ahead because they aren’t tied in to existing settlements and infrastructure

Black noted any approval under Amendment 1 stipulates increased density, appropriate infrastructure, and compliance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

A higher standard applies in Section 6.3.2.2, which allows the county to turn agricultural or rural lands to urban use. This mandates creation of complete communities with jobs, services, schools, range of housing and public transit.

The upper limits on numbers for each municipality in Simcoe County have been a major irritant for county leaders who view growth as the engine of prosperity, and an obstacle to provincial approval of county’s 2008 Official Plan.

Parks told the committee there is so much growth potential within the settlement boundaries that most municipalities are not going to need to tap into the extra 20,000 population above 667,000 that Amendment 1, Section 6.3.2.3, allows the county to allocate.

“We believe this policy (Section 6.3.2.1) may augment that policy (Section 6.3.2.3) so the 20,000 is not an issue,” he said.

Parks said county staff have been meeting weekly with provincial bureaucrats on how to interpret Amendment 1, new legislation announced in January by Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli.

The goal is to get the county’s Official Plan approved by the province. Parks said a modified version of the OP  will be presented to the committee, in camera, on June 13. Municipalities will then review it, also in camera, with approval of the OP by county council set for August 28.

Some councillors seemed surprised by the rosy future for development that Parks outlined.

“How do we reconcile Schedule 7 with the numbers that can now proceed?” asked Springwater Mayor Linda Collins. Schedule 7 of the Growth Plan contains the forecasts that show her township growing from its present population of 18,500 to 24,000 by 2031.

“As it is today, it says if you’re in an urban boundary, it says you’re good to go in excess of those numbers,” Parks replied.

Essa Mayor Terry Dowdall suggested that the policy could add another 100,000 people to the 2031 population forecast.  Planning manager Rick Newlove said he didn’t expect the increase to be that high, and it’s more likely to be an extra 30,000, the number in the county’s Official Plan growth plan.

CAO Mark Aitken reminded councillors that he had advised them not to worry about the numbers scheduled by the province. “The numbers will work themselves out,” he said, “the market allows for that.”

He added: “Every municipality has opportunities for growth unrestricted, if you will, inside their boundary limits. If you follow the guidelines…. there are no restrictions or caps.”

Link to May 9 Corporate Services agenda. Parks’ report is CS 12-080 

Link to Ontario’s Growth Pan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Amendment 1, the special provisions applying to Simcoe County, makes up Section 6.