Tribunal rules waste facility in Simcoe County forest no risk to environment

The Ontario Land Tribunal ruled Jan. 25 there is no compelling evidence a proposed waste facility in Simcoe County’s Freele forest tract would threaten the health and integrity of the woodland. | RICHARD LAUTENS PHOTO

From the Toronto Star, January 28, 2022
By Travis Mealing

A proposed waste facility in Simcoe County’s Freele forest tract poses no threat to wildlife or the environment.

That was the main thrust of an Ontario Land Tribunal ruling on Jan. 25 (see below), dismissing an appeal by Friends of Simcoe Forests.

The grassroots group, strongly opposed to the idea of an environmental resource recovery centre (ERRC) in a rural area of Springwater Township, had appealed a county amendment of its official plan that would allow the project.

“The Friends of Simcoe Forests are disappointed in the Tribunal’s decision,” the group said in an email to Simcoe.com.

“We believe we have put forward compelling evidence of the impact a large waste facility in the middle of a forest may have on our environment and our community. Currently, we are discussing any further steps that may be taken.”

Warden George Cornell applauded the tribunal’s decision, noting it validates the work that began in 2016 and led to the selection of the Horseshoe Valley Road site.

“The urgent need to create local organics processing and materials management capacity has increased,” he said in a statement.

“County landfills are reaching capacity, our population is increasing, as a society, we’re producing more waste, the costs of outsourcing and contracting waste services is rising, and investment in diversion and organics programs (is) becoming a necessity.”

The Friends have argued such a facility belongs not in a forest, but a site zoned for industrial use. The group has further stated there are several species at risk in the selected area and one endangered species.

The county and its planning and environmental witnesses countered the proposed ERRC “did not represent any threat to loss of species or biodiversity” and “there would be no negative impact to the significant woodlands.”

The tribunal agreed. In dismissing the appeal, vice-chair Sharyn Vincent wrote that “the witnesses for the Friends failed to introduce compelling evidence that the permanent removal of a portion of the woodland would, in fact, result in degradation which would threaten the health and integrity of (the) woodland.”

Despite its disappointment, the Friends thanked the many supporters who contributed to its efforts on behalf of the forest and its creatures.

Cornell cautioned the ruling does not mean tractors and building equipment would be moving in next week.

“Further approvals and processes are required from multiple levels of government before the project can proceed,” he said. “We look forward to working with these and with interested members of the public going forward.”

The project’s estimated cost is $15 million for the materials-management facility and an additional $16 million to $30 million for the organics-processing facility.