Category:Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is a key component of Ontario’s land use planning system. It provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and guides the provincial “policy-led” planning system. The current PPS came into effect on March 1, 2005.

The PPS provides broad direction on land use patterns, forms of development, the management of some natural resources, and other issues, such as natural hazards. From an environmental perspective, the PPS is very important; it contains planning direction for woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitat, air quality, and the quality and quantity of water. The PPS also plays a role in governing such land uses as aggregate extraction, agriculture, transportation, and other types of infrastructure.

The stated intent of the PPS is to provide for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural environment. The PPS applies to any land use planning decisions made under the Planning Act by municipal councils, local boards, planning boards, provincial Ministers, provincial government and agency officials, and the ]]Ontario Municipal Board]].

The PPS represents “minimum standards” for planning authorities. It does not prevent decision makers from exceeding the requirements of the PPS, unless that would result in a conflict with other components of the PPS. However, “provincial plans” – such as the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan – take precedence over the PPS in the case of a conflict. The 2005 PPS states that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will identify performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of some or all of the policies in the PPS. In 2010, MMAH released an initial set of performance indicators, developed to monitor the effectiveness of the PPS. To a large extent, these indicators only determine how “consistent” official plans are with the PPS, rather than assessing whether provincial direction is achieving an actual on-the-ground effect, especially with regard to the conservation of natural heritage features and functions.

Despite the requirement in the amended Planning Act that decisions made by planning authorities “shall be consistent with” the PPS, the 2005 PPS itself uses stronger or weaker language depending on the degree to which planning authorities are required to implement its sections. MMAH has noted that some parts of the PPS are expressed as positive or required directions by means of “shall.” Other parts use enabling or supportive language, which could be interpreted as being completely discretionary, including “should,” “promote,” “may permit,” “consider,” and “encourage.” For example, with regard to municipal official plans, which are the primary means of implementing many of these planning reforms, the PPS states that municipalities “shall” identify provincial interests in establishing land use designation and municipal policies. On the other hand, municipalities “should” coordinate cross-boundary issues that involve other planning authorities. Although the PPS states that municipalities “shall” keep their official plans up to date, they are only “encouraged” to develop indicators to monitor the implementation official plan policies.

The PPS takes a selective approach in its requirements for the identification and planning of natural heritage features and functions. Not only does the PPS not require a municipality to identify natural heritage features, unless they are necessary for the hydrological integrity of the watershed, it also does not obligate a municipality to plan for the creation of a natural heritage system. Further, with the exception of specialty crop areas, municipalities are not required to identify prime agricultural lands. In both examples, the PPS does not specify or encourage municipalities to develop supporting policies that ensure that specified targets are met – even though that would constitute sound planning.

Prioritizing Policies within the PPS

The importance of the PPS cannot be overstated. It is the collection of quasi-rules that underpins Ontario’s approach to planning. It guides the practice of planning, literally shaping the landscape of the province. It also serves to reflect the priorities and values of the Ontario government. According to MMAH, the initiatives of the 2005 PPS “will provide an overall planning framework for Ontario that will help to create strong, sustainable communities, a strong economy, and will help to protect our environment and resources.” The policy changes are intended to achieve several government commitments, including refining the planning system, defining an urban and natural structure, aligning infrastructure, and providing a stronger “green” focus.

Although MMAH has stated that there is “no implied priority” in the order in which the topic areas appear within the PPS, it is evident that some land uses are given priority over others. The 2005 PPS, along with other Ontario laws that shape how it is implemented, unequivocally establish priorities. Environmental planning and the protection of natural areas, wild species and water quality are not given the same importance as drivers for economic development.

Municipalities are required to plan actively for residential and commercial growth and set aside sufficient lands in order to meet rigid growth targets. The 2005 PPS weaves in and facilitates the supporting mechanisms for this burgeoning growth, by granting special exemptions for infrastructure such as roads and corridors for electrical powerlines. The planning system presupposes this growth and has been explicitly designed for it. From a strictly traditional economic perspective, this approach might be sound.

From a biodiversity or sustainability perspective, this planning approach will fail in the long term. Few of the critical elements of the natural environment – significant woodlands, wetlands, valleylands, species and sensitive water features – are adequately protected. In fact, virtually none of them are protected from the most invasive development activities, such as aggregate extraction or highway construction. Natural features are often treated simply as end-stage checks on development. Many natural features do not even have to be identified or comprehensively planned for by municipalities.

The approach taken by the PPS often means that environmental interests must be defended on a case-by-case basis, woodlot-by-woodlot and wetland-by-wetland. Supporters of natural heritage often bear the burden of proving the ecological significance of such areas, and must often justify their protection on the grounds that such features provide environmental services. Rather, the onus – starting at the very onset of the planning process – should be placed on the development pressures themselves to justify need. Taking such an ecologically sensible approach might require that individual development activities demonstrate their own “significance” and societal need to merit intrusion on a natural heritage system.

The existing “development-first, environment-second” approach to planning has spawned a confusing mix of legislation and provincial plans. Rather than viewing an ecological feature, such as a provincially significant wetland, as being important enough to protect no matter where it is situated in the province, the PPS requires that separate rules be applied depending on its location. The result is that the same type of natural area will receive different treatment depending on whether it lies on specific parts of the Niagara Escarpment, in the Greenbelt, on the Oak Ridges Moraine, in the Lake Simcoe watershed, in southern Ontario or in northern Ontario.

Laws such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (ORMCA), the Greenbelt Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (LSPA) reflect a disturbing trend to protect notable natural heritage features on an individual basis rather than implement broader-based safeguards as a provincial interest under the PPS. This tendency to protect by exception on a regionally specific basis rather than as a rule is both reactionary and problematic. A planning system that uses the PPS to be “complemented by provincial plans or locally-generated policies” ensures that inconsistent consideration, at best, will be given to the environment as currently applied. The natural environment must be treated as an integrated system and, at a minimum, given at least equal weight to other planning considerations.

Public Concerns about the PPS

The Planning Act requires that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing begin a review of the PPS every five years. The PPS is currently under review and MMAH began to seek public input in May 2010 with a policy proposal notice on the Environmental Registry (#010-9766). MMAH provided a review and comment period from May 12 to October 29, 2010 for the public to provide comments on its proposed review of the PPS to determine the need for revisions to it. In particular, MMAH asked the public to provide input on: which policies of the PPS are working effectively; policies that need clarification or refinement; policies that are no longer needed; new policy areas or issues that the government needs to provide land use planning direction on; and the additional support material needed to help implement the PPS. Although the notice and comment period for this initial stage of review ended in October 2010, the PPS review will continue and may lead to proposals for specific changes to the PPS. This is an important opportunity for the public to participate in the current review of the PPS.

Between 1999 and 2009, members of the public submitted 28 applications for review that directly or indirectly requested changes to the PPS. These EBR applications raised a wide variety of concerns about Ontario’s land use planning system. Many of these applications centre on the need to improve the requirements for environmental protection. Other applications expressed concerns that government policy changes are necessary to more broadly apply sustainable planning direction to issues such as infrastructure and transportation. In every case, MMAH denied these requests, on the grounds that either the PPS had already been reviewed within the last five years or it was in the process of being reviewed. In fact, MMAH has denied every single EBR application that it has ever received on any subject matter. Despite the nature of their mandates and their obvious role in land use planning issues, other ministries often deny these EBR applications by asserting that they are not directly responsible for the PPS.

The ECO has made several recommendations on the need for changes to the PPS in the 2010 review, including the following:

• that the PPS be amended to prohibit new infrastructure such as highways in Provincially Significant Wetlands unless there are no reasonable alternatives and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on their ecological functions;

• that the 2010 review of the PPS introduce effective mechanisms for protecting significant woodlands, including mechanisms for woodland evaluation, designation, tracking and reporting; and,

• that MMAH amend the Provincial Policy Statement to require integrated watershed management planning.