Arguments for, against expanding London’s urban growth boundary

Article content

As London’s population swells beyond expectation, and the city looks down the barrel of the national housing crisis, there are new questions about available land and its affordability. LFP reporter Jack Moulton takes a look at the city’s urban growth boundary, and why it should or shouldn’t be expanded.

Article content

Article content

WHAT IS THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY?

London’s urban growth boundary dictates the region of the city where residential and commercial development can take place, and where it can’t.

Article content

The urban boundary as it stands has only been slightly changed since it was established in 1996, following London’s last annexation of land in 1993.

The objective of the boundary is to curb urban sprawl.

Keeping an urban boundary protects agricultural land in London, but also saves the city money by preventing spread-out developments that would require the city to expand things like transit service and water and sewer connections to serve it – with potentially nothing in between.

WHAT IS THE CITY LOOKING AT?

City staff themselves say that opening up more land for development allows London to accommodate its growing population, and impacts the city’s ability to build housing and how affordable it can be.

The question, is how much land should be opened up? It depends who you ask, but Mayor Josh Morgan, and councillors Steve Lehman, Shawn Lewis, Elizabeth Peloza, and Peter Cuddy agrees it needs to get bigger.

In a 6-0 vote during Tuesday’s meeting of council’s planning committee, politicians unanimously endorsed exploring a city-staff recommendation to add 1,476 hectares (3,647 acres) to the urban boundary for 30 years of projected population growth.

Article content

Article content

In a 5-1 vote, with only Peloza opposed, committee members also endorsed asking the province for their support of a 2,000 hectare (4,942 acres) urban boundary expansion for more than 30 years of population growth, recommended by independent consulting firm Colliers under a housing supply marketplace analysis. Should the province support it, it would take precedent.

ARGUMENTS FOR EXPANSION

Unsurprisingly, developers were in support of any expansion. Jared Zaifman, chief executive of the London Home Builders Association, told politicians that changing the boundary is the single greatest impact council can have on housing supply and affordability.

Mike Wallace, the executive director of the London Development Institute, said that if London won’t welcome more development — its surrounding boroughs will.

“If you don’t grow the urban growth boundary here, people will go elsewhere on farmland surrounding London and drive in every single day, using your resources, but do not . . . pay property tax,” Wallace told politicians.

Morgan agreed, calling it a “worst-case scenario.” Speaking to the committee virtually, he impressed the need to have open lands to reduce sprawl beyond the city’s borders.

Article content

“Proper growth, with transit and proper facilities within the city of London on a time horizon that gives us the time to have the population come, to build the city out in a way that is responsible, I think it’s the way to go,” he said.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Former city councillor Sandy Levin cast doubt on recent forecasts from the province which inform the urban boundary expansion, predicting London with a population of 740,550 by 2051.

“The province asks you to suspend belief and some common sense, it ignores the federal government’s change in immigration and international student targets and asks you to believe future governments in Ottawa will maintain half a million for immigration,” he said. “I don’t buy that, I don’t think you should either.”

Mary Ann Hodge, co-founder of Climate Action London, called Tuesday’s considerations “a long wish list for the development community” that will further fuel low-density sprawl.

Peloza was only interested in the smaller expansion, recognizing London’s push for more infill and density, but also referencing Glanworth in her own ward, which mostly falls outside the urban boundary.

Article content

Coun. Sam Trosow said he worried about protecting farmland with a boundary change, as well as how increased value of new developable land could impact affordability.

“I heard some very compelling reasons why we need to be getting more input from people of different walks of life other than the development community,” he said.

WHAT’S NEXT?

City council will still need to approve exploring urban boundary changes at their next regular meeting on Dec. 17.

Should it be approved, city staff will conduct its own evaluations of land that could be added, plus reviewing 25 previous applications of land to be included in the boundary, and bring its recommendations back to politicians for approval.

Final sign-off would still be needed from the province.

jmoulton@postmedia.com

@JackAtLFPress

Article content