Burlington farmer James Fisher says a natural heritage designation will inevitably put agricultural interests behind environmental concerns.

Kudos to Halton Region, which is finally looking to limit development after a huge amount of some of Ontario’s finest farmland has already been or is planned to be developed on.

This will be interesting to watch as the situation pits green politicians vs. rural politicians supporting farmers vs. farmers who want to sell their land to developers vs. farmers who want to preserve Halton’s rich farmland.

You may also want to read two other articles posted previously on MiltonSearch.com: Strawberry Fields (not) Forever and A Farewell to Farms.

Below is an overview of Halton Region and its land designations. Click the image for an enlarged, interactive version.

Here is this latest column in it’s entirety from the Toronto Star:

Where Homes Don’t Grow

Halton’s radical plan to limit development pits red-taped farmers against green politicians

Outspoken Oakville councillor Allan Elgar has a name for the practice of building a sprawling subdivision on prime farmland: He calls it “the final crop.”

That’s why the farmboy-turned-environmentalist is backing Halton Region’s groundbreaking proposal to set its own protections on an extensive natural heritage system. The plan would preserve a whopping 36 per cent of the region’s developable land, set up an integrated network of preserved areas, and drastically curtail where houses can be planted some day.

The land included is neither part of the protected greenbelt and Niagara Escarpment nor under consideration for development.

But the move is pitting green-minded politicians in Oakville and Burlington against those in Halton Hills and Milton, who are more responsive to concerns raised by farmers and development interests and have opposed it. A final vote is slated for Dec. 16.

Supporters make no bones about the fact the plan will thwart speculators who have bought, or arranged to buy, vast hectares of prime agricultural land in Halton, and the farmers who want to sell it.

Caught in the crossfire, however, are farmers who don’t want to sell but are deeply concerned that the new designation will add another layer of regulation that bodes ill for farming in the long run.

It is, contends James Fisher, all about how words are interpreted.

“The actual designation has negative impact,” said Fisher, one of several farmers who spoke to Halton regional council this week. “It’s not that we are against the natural heritage system. We want an alternative that respects agriculture.”

They fear that replacing the current agricultural zoning with the term “natural heritage” will inevitably put farming interests behind environmental concerns, despite repeated assurances that farming will always be allowed.

Farmers want, at a minimum, to see the natural heritage system designated as preserving both environmental features and agriculture.

Whatever the final wording, Elgar and most of the Halton councillors seem ready to approve the creation of a vast “systems-based” network of natural heritage corridors to connect environmentally sensitive areas such as river valleys, woodlots and wetlands.

It would end the old practice of protecting only isolated pockets, which tend to degrade over time if there are no corridors ensuring that wildlife can move freely.

The proposal may be more radical than the provincial greenbelt legislation because it bans golf courses anywhere on the system, whereas the province just blocks golf courses from prime agricultural land.

“If we get this, we will be the first region in the Greater Toronto Area with a systems-based approach on a regional basis,” said Elgar, describing the preservation plan as simply an extra layer of protection.

“It is a no-touch zone … There is concern that there is a lot of farming land bought by the development industry, with the hope in future of flipping it to plant houses.”

The plan would not only make protected areas off-limits but also make anything built within 120 metres of a natural heritage feature or corridor subject to an environmental impact assessment – a proposition feared both by developers and farmers who want to make improvements to their property.

While other GTA municipalities are also doing more long-range development planning now, Halton’s scheme is the most ambitious.

In the face of similar opposition, Peel Region politicians recently deferred a decision on their own plan, which targets mostly farmland in Brampton and Caledon. Peel’s plan is less stringent than Halton’s – it has been slammed by the Sierra Club for example, for allowing golf courses to be built in the valley lands of its waterways.

Halton politicians could take courage from an Ontario Municipal Board ruling last year that approved Oakville’s controversial decision to protect 900 hectares on its own initiative. The preservation area – won after a decade-long tussle with the development industry – represents more than one-third of the 3,400 hectares of undeveloped land north of Dundas St. W.

The OMB ruling was a major victory for the likes of Elgar, Oakville Mayor Rob Burton and members of the environmental group Oakvillegreen, who had fought to preserve green space in north Oakville while making room for an eventual population of more than 50,000.

The ruling also emboldened them and other Halton Region politicians to go after developers for thousands of dollars in extra development charges on each home sold – significantly higher than other regions – under the mantra that “growth must pay for itself” and municipal government doesn’t exist to subsidize developer profits.

Halton Hills Councillor Clark Sommerville says the intention behind the natural heritage system proposal is good – and driven by urban councillors from Oakville and Burlington who are trying to make amends for the fact their communities were largely built out before such protections existed.

But he thinks it’s “overkill.”

No matter how well-intentioned, overregulation “will be the death knell of farming,” Somerville said – not development.

“The biggest thing we are trying to protect is the non-urban rural land from development, but the way it’s being written it almost appears that agriculture is the threat,” he said.

Still, environmentalists such as Liz Benneian of Oakvillegreen say the new rules will ensure protection for farmers. Her only concern is that a provision in the original plan – superimposing the natural heritage system on Greenbelt areas as a second layer of protection against a future change of heart by the province – has since been removed.

“We believe this is a forward-thinking plan from planners and politicians,” Benneian said. “A gift to our grandchildren.”

Comments on this story are moderated