Prime farmland in London won’t be getting additional protection

London will not be considering new policies to further protect the amount of Class 1 Agricultural Land within the city limits. Daryl Newombe reports.

London will not be considering new policies to further protect the amount of Class 1 Agricultural Land within the city limits from growing development pressure.

On Tuesday, City Council considered a motion by Coun. Skylar Franke that would have directed city staff to prepare a report about the feasibility of an Agricultural Offset Policy including best practices from other jurisdictions.

When a parcel of prime farmland is approved for development, an offset policy would permanently protect a similar parcel elsewhere within the city limits.

Franke emphasized that Class 1 Agricultural land is a finite resource that can not be replaced after it is lost to development.

According to Franke, Class 1 farmland makes up only 0.5 per cent of Canada’s prime farmland and a significant portion of the very limited resource is found within Southern Ontario.

In addition, a significant portion of the land within the urban boundary expansion area is Class 1.

“The urgency for us (is) to develop a path forward that balances growth but also with farmland stewardship,” she urged her colleagues.

Coun. Hadleigh McAlister suggested that protecting prime farmland shouldn’t just be a rural priority, “Not only Middlesex, but looking at Oxford, Elgin (counties) we have a lot of areas that feed the city, but we also have to look inward as well.”

London is in the process of expanding the Urban Growth Boundary within the city limits, and recently city council approved rezoning Class 1 Agricultural Land on Manning Road for a new 50 acre Emergency Services Campus for police and firefighter training.

Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis suggested it isn’t the right time for an Agricultural Offset Policy given London’s rapid growth and budget constraints.

“I know Coun. Franke’s not asking for a budget commitment or anything like that in this motion, but ultimately, that’s where land trusts go, because you have to have money to buy land to then put it into the trust,” Lewis added.

Franke’s motion failed by a single vote, 7 to 8.