A stormwater study removed from an application checklist does not make rain disappear. Nor does eliminating a technical review decide how a project will drain, connect to a street or receive water and sewer service. Cancelled studies and reviews do not disappear. They move, usually to a later stage of approvals, where redesign costs more.

That is the test Ontario should apply to Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, which received royal assent on June 2. The omnibus law is designed to accelerate housing supply, standardize municipal planning frameworks, and reform transit fares and service integration. The province is right to pursue consistent rules that can cut repetition and delay.

But standardizing plan structure, study requirements and sequence of decisions is a different exercise from overriding evidence about a particular place. This difference matters more as implementation proceeds. Every task removed from one stage needs a clear home elsewhere. Success should be measured in homes completed, infrastructure delivered and public spaces that people actually use.

Bill 98’s broader planning package is only partly operating. The lot-size provision is in force yet has no practical effect until a regulation sets the cap; 175 square metres remains only a proposal. The standardized official plan framework is not yet in effect, while proposed study lists and broader site-plan reforms remain proposals. Meanwhile, developer-identified parkland rules took effect July 1. Public debate needs to distinguish between enacted law and measures still being designed.

Standardized framework, local choices

An official plan is a municipality’s long-term, land-use policy document. The framework, enacted but not yet in effect, will require common chapters, maps and land-use categories. This common architecture could make plans easier to navigate for residents, applicants and decision-makers alike. It could also make municipal data easier to compare. But a common table of contents is not the same as a common planning answer.

Ontario should set shared headings, definitions, map conventions and core data, while municipalities........

© IRPP - Policy Options