The Greenbelt Act, 2005, and the Greenbelt Plan
The Greater Golden Horseshoe area is one of the fastest growing regions in North America, with the province projecting that another 4 million people will settle in the area before 2031. For decades, urban development has promoted inefficient land use patterns that have devoured significant amounts of southern Ontario’s agricultural lands and natural areas. Sprawl development continues to threaten the remaining lands and has generated political and economic pressures on the provincial government to assume a leadership role, after an extended reluctance to intervene, in coordinating regional and provincial-level planning in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Contents |
The Greenbelt Act, 2005
During the 2003 provincial election, the government committed to creating a greenbelt area in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Right after the election, in December 2003, the government introduced Bill 27, the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003, to designate a Greenbelt study area and place a one-year moratorium on development in the study area. A Greenbelt Task Force conducted public consultation and made recommendations that led to the introduction of the Greenbelt Act, 2005, which was enacted in February 2005 but applies retroactively to December 2004.
The Act provides the authority to establish a Greenbelt Plan (GBP), provides for local official plan conformity, and establishes a Greenbelt Council to advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Greenbelt Act gives the government authority to protect a greenbelt of agricultural and environmentally sensitive land in the Golden Horseshoe from urban sprawl. This “Protected Countryside” is subject to the requirements of the Greenbelt Plan. The greenbelt area also includes the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment areas.
The Act sets out numerous objectives for the GBP, including:
- establishing a network of countryside and open space areas that supports the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment.
- sustaining the countryside, rural and small towns and contributing to the economic viability of farming communities.
- preserving agricultural land as a continuing commercial source of food and employment.
- providing protection to the land base needed to maintain, restore and improve the ecological and hydrological functions of the Protected Countryside.
- providing open space and recreational, tourism and cultural heritage opportunities to support the social needs of a rapidly expanding and increasingly urbanized population.
Though the Greenbelt Act preserves land around and in the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment areas, it does not revoke or replace the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (ORMCA) or the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA), the existing laws which protect those areas. This raises the question of which of these land use planning regimes should take precedence in the case of a conflict. The Greenbelt Act deals with this issue by providing that the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) prevail over the GBP in their areas of application.
However, the Act also allows Cabinet to make regulations to override anything in the ORMCP or the NEP if necessary for the operation of the GBP. It seems likely that conflicts will be resolved on an issue-by-issue basis.
MAH has stated that the Greenbelt Act contemplates that the less environmentally protective plan will be brought up to the standard of the more environmentally protective plan, but this is not stated explicitly in the Act. Thus, it is possible that the reverse may occur in some circumstances and the provisions of one plan may be weakened by the application of another.
The GBP also prevails where there is a conflict with an official plan, zoning bylaw or the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Municipal councils and planning authorities located in any of the areas designated as Protected Countryside must amend every official plan to conform with the GBP.
In contrast to the ORMCA, which provided that the ORMCP be established by minister’s regulation, the Greenbelt Act specifically provides that the GBP is not to be established by regulation. This means that the GBP has the status of a policy, and is not legally enforceable as a regulation in the same way as the ORMCP. The ORMCA contains offence provisions with penalties applying to anyone who contravenes a prohibition or fails to comply with a restriction in the ORMCP, or fails to comply with an order under the ORMCA. The Greenbelt Act, however, includes no offence provisions, consistent with the status of the GBP as a policy.
A review of the Greenbelt Plan must be carried out every 10 years in conjunction with reviews of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan. The Act requires the minister to consult with affected public bodies, including the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Greenbelt Council established under the Greenbelt Act, and municipalities. The Act also requires the minister to ensure that the public is given an opportunity to participate in the 10-year review. In addition, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing may propose amendments to the areas designated as Protected Countryside in the GBP at any time and undertake consultation on these amendments.
The Greenbelt Act is an important piece of legislation and contains the potential to protect agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive areas in the Greater Golden Horseshoe from continued urban sprawl. However, the effectiveness of the Act is largely dependent on the details of the Greenbelt Plan, discussed below. (For further details about the Greenbelt Act, see the Supplement to this report, pages 117-135.)
Key features of the Greenbelt Plan
The Greenbelt encompasses more than 328,000 hectares of lands already subject to the requirements of the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, as well as a newly added 400,000 hectares of land described as “Protected Countryside” which is subject to the Greenbelt Act and Greenbelt Plan. The combined total area of the Greenbelt is approximately 728,000 hectares.
The Protected Countryside (PC), with the exception of settlement areas (land within the Greenbelt designated for urban uses), includes three basic land use designations, all rooted in agricultural uses: specialty crop areas, prime agricultural lands, and rural lands. Over two-thirds of the PC is designated for agricultural use, with approximately 11 per cent of the overall area designated as specialty crop areas, and 57 per cent as prime agricultural land. Specialty crop areas are offered the greatest protection, with no expansions of settlement areas (land designated for urban uses) allowed into these areas, and no new non-agricultural uses permitted. Prime agricultural areas are not protected from settlement area expansions, which are permitted at the 10-year review subject to conditions, but these areas are protected from other new non-agricultural uses.
Rural lands make up approximately 17 per cent of the PC area. Within areas designated rural, a wide range of institutional, commercial, and recreational uses are permitted. Throughout the Protected Countryside, residential lot severances are strictly controlled and the development of adult lifestyle and retirement communities is prohibited. Further, the Plan prohibits the expansion of settlement areas located outside the PC into the PC. The remaining 15 per cent of the PC is occupied by existing settlement areas, within which land uses are governed by municipal plans and related programs.
Layered over the three basic land use designations is a Natural Heritage System (NHS) that covers approximately 53 per cent of the Protected Countryside and includes 85 per cent of its key natural heritage features. Within the NHS, enhanced protections are provided for key natural heritage and hydrologic features, including policies setting out restrictions and requirements for any development or site alteration near these features or their protection zones. Outside the NHS and within the PC, the policies of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) guide the protection of key natural heritage features, but the list of key features protected under the PPS is not as comprehensive as those protected under the Natural Heritage System. Key hydrologic features are protected by NHS policies throughout the PC.
Infrastructure – including water and wastewater treatment systems, waste management systems, and transportation facilities and corridors – is permitted throughout the Protected Countryside, including within key natural heritage features if the need can be demonstrated and there are no feasible alternative locations. New mineral aggregate operations can be established, without justifying need, throughout the PC except within certain key natural heritage features within the Natural Heritage System. New or expanded mineral aggregate operations within the NHS are subject to enhanced site rehabilitation requirements as set out in the Greenbelt Plan. Any such operations within the PC but outside of the NHS are subject to a more limited list of enhanced rehabilitation requirements.
The Greenbelt Plan permits renewable resource activities, including forestry, water taking, fisheries, conservation, and wildlife management activities, throughout the PC, including within key natural heritage features. Recreational uses, including major uses such as ski hills, golf courses, and campgrounds, are also permitted within rural areas of the PC, subject to conditions. Within the Natural Heritage System, proposals for major recreational facilities require additional planning to minimize water, nutrient and biocide use.
Affected municipalities must bring their official plans into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan no later than the time of the required official plan five-year review, or by the date specified by the minister. Municipalities are free to enact stricter requirements than those set out in the Plan, if they do not conflict with it. However, they cannot enact stricter policies to regulate agricultural uses or mineral aggregate operations.
Plan implications and implementation
The Plan’s approach to the protection of key natural heritage features is subtly but significantly different from the approach used in both the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. These latter plans are driven by land use designations, with the goal of protecting natural heritage systems. The Greenbelt Plan, in contrast, is driven by land use designations with the goals of protecting agricultural lands and conserving rural lands. The Natural Heritage System, with its enhanced policies for the protection of natural heritage features, is layered on top of these land use designations. Some experts criticize this features-focused approach, since competing interests can emerge when natural heritage policies are applied as an overlay onto areas where other land uses are permitted. The table below compares the approaches of the NEP, the ORMCP, and the GBP, showing that MAH’s claim that the Greenbelt Plan confers permanent protection on natural heritage systems is overstated.
Land Use Policies and Designations in Most Stringently Protected Natural Area Categories
| Existing or Proposed Land Use | Greenbelt Plan Natural Heritage System (Policy Overlay) | Niagara Escarpment Plan Escarpment Natural Area (Land Use Designation) | Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Natural Core Areas (Land Use Designation) |
|---|---|---|---|
| New mineral aggregate extraction operations | Yes1 | No | No |
| Expansion of existing mineral aggregate extraction operations | Yes | Yes2 | No3 |
| Major recreational uses (e.g., ski hills, golf courses, serviced camp grounds) | Yes | No4 | No4 |
| New waste management facilities (e.g., landfills, incinerators) | Yes | No | No |
| Transportation infrastructure (e.g., public highways) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Human Settlement Area expansions | No | No | No |
| Agricultural uses (existing and new) | Yes | Yes5 | Yes |
| Water taking | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Forest Management (including wood harvesting) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
n.b. Where uses are permitted, these uses may be subject to requirements contained in each of the plans. Interested readers should consult each plan to learn about any requirements.
1Except in significant wetlands, significant woodlands, and significant habitat of endangered species & threatened species.
2Only limited expansion of existing sandstone quarries permitted
3Not beyond boundary of area under license or permit
4Only low intensity recreational uses permitted
5Existing operations permitted but no new operations permitted
The Greenbelt Plan does contain strong policies to protect agricultural lands from urban sprawl. The most significant of these policies is the restriction on the expansion of settlement areas located outside the Protected Countryside into the PC. This makes the Plan a critical component of provincial efforts to curb sprawl development in the Greater Golden Horseshoe – thereby protecting agricultural lands and natural heritage, and encouraging efficient land use. The policies of the Plan are meant to work in tandem with growth management strategies emerging out of growth plans mandated by the Places to Grow Act (see box).
Places to Grow Act and the Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
|
The Greenbelt Plan also requires that a Greenbelt Council be established whose duties include tracking the success of Plan implementation, identifying issues emerging from implementation, and advising on the development of Greenbelt Plan performance measures. Performance measures are to be established through MAH’s Municipal Performance Measurement Program.
The role of the province in Plan implementation appears to be very limited, apart from the Greenbelt Council. Municipalities are charged with designating prime agricultural and rural lands, and identifying and delineating the boundaries of key natural heritage features, with minimal and sometimes no guidance from the province. This has generated concern among stakeholders – including municipalities – regarding the potential for inconsistent Plan implementation across the Protected Countryside and the lack of resources and expertise at the municipal level to take on these implementation responsibilities. Further, while the Plan sets out a process for monitoring the success of implementation through performance measures, it is unclear who will ultimately assume responsibility for steering this process.
ECO Comment
In the ECO’s opinion, the policies designed to protect the Greenbelt’s natural features and functions, while stronger than the protections offered by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, are not suitably protective in the long term for a greenbelt area. The ECO is concerned about the uses that the Plan permits across the Protected Countryside and, in some instances, near or within key natural features. The ECO believes natural heritage policies should be at least as strong as those in the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Introducing consistency across these plans would also eliminate the complexities and confusion that arise when multiple plans with differing policies apply to lands in such close proximity.
The Greenbelt Plan also fails to challenge status quo approaches to transportation – as demonstrated through Plan policies permitting highways and aggregate extraction operations in most of the Protected Countryside, thereby compromising the Plan’s expressed goal of offering protection to natural heritage, water resource systems, and agricultural lands. The ECO believes this fundamental weakness of the Plan could lead to transportation corridors that generate additional growth pressures that would threaten the PC and beyond.
The ECO applauds the Plan’s strong policies aimed at preventing the expansion of urban communities into the PC, but remains concerned that settlement areas within the PC can expand into prime agricultural land. Further, the ECO encourages the government to pursue the development of a much-needed sustainable agriculture policy by working with farmers, consumers, and other stakeholders.
The ECO is also pleased that the Places to Grow Act received Royal Assent in June of 2005, and that the first regulation under the Act designating the Greater Golden Horseshoe as a growth plan area has been filed. Growth planning is a necessary counterbalance to the Greenbelt Plan that must not be delayed, and the ECO looks forward to the prompt finalization of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. The ECO commends the government for committing to the establishment of a Greenbelt Council to monitor and evaluate the success of the Plan’s implementation. However, the ECO urges the government to assume a larger role in its implementation by providing clear guidelines and direction to municipalities and other agencies that will play a part in Plan implementation. The provision of provincial resources in the form of staff expertise and funding would also facilitate Plan implementation.
The Greenbelt Act and Plan represent important elements in a larger provincial effort to begin to promote sustainable land use in southern Ontario. However, all of these initiatives operate on the assumption that current growth patterns in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area are inevitable and desirable. The ECO believes these assumptions need to be explored further, and consideration given to concepts such as “carrying capacity,” “ecological footprint,” and “limits to growth.”
The ECO will monitor the implementation of the Greenbelt Act and Plan and provide updates in future reports.
| This is an article from the 2004/05 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2005. "The Greenbelt Act, 2005, and the Greenbelt Plan." Planning our Landscape, ECO Annual Report, 2004-05. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 47-54.
