A new bill in British Columbia, known as Bill M216 or the Professional Reliance Act, has passed its second reading in the legislature, igniting significant debate among housing experts, planners, and local governments. Critics argue the legislation undermines local decision-making power and could grant developers excessive control over project approvals, potentially eroding established planning processes and safety standards.
Key Takeaways
- Critics fear Bill M216 will diminish the role of municipal staff in development approvals.
- The bill proposes that projects approved by certified professionals hired by developers would be automatically accepted.
- Opponents cite concerns about safety, urban design, and the loss of local democratic control over land use.
- Supporters believe the bill will expedite housing construction by reducing bureaucratic delays.
Erosion Of Local Governance
If passed, Bill M216 would allow housing project submissions, certified by architects and engineers hired by developers, to be approved without review by city staff. The only exception would be if a submission is incomplete, with a provincial dispute resolution process available. Currently, municipal staff review all proposals to ensure compliance with development permit requirements. A report from the City of Coquitlam suggests the bill could compel local governments to accept architectural drawings as meeting design guidelines, potentially impacting rezoning applications which typically involve planners assessing community fit and policy alignment.
Supporters And Opponents Weigh In
NDP MLA George Anderson, who proposed the bill, stated its intention is to accelerate housing construction. The legislation has garnered support from the Urban Development Institute, representing B.C. developers, and the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. However, a coalition of housing practitioners, the Planning Institute of B.C., and the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) are strongly opposed. UBCM president Cori Ramsay called the bill a "bad idea" that puts homeowners and taxpayers at risk, fundamentally restructuring the local planning approval process and potentially leading to safety concerns if municipal oversight is removed.
Broader Implications And Concerns
Beyond safety, critics worry about the broader implications for land use decisions. Zoning changes, often conditional and subject to planning director approval regarding aspects like building height and setbacks, could be bypassed. A bulletin from law firm Lidstone & Co. suggests local governments could be "firewalled from due diligence" on various development aspects, potentially increasing risks and liabilities for municipalities and homeowners. While supporters point to "government-imposed measures" like long review times as contributing to high construction costs, they acknowledge that urban design requirements might still be better suited for local review.
A "Quiet Revolution" In Local Democracy
An open letter signed by 30 housing practitioners, including former planning directors, describes the bill as a "quiet revolution in local governance," accusing the province of altering the relationship between local democracy and development. They argue that empowering professionals hired by developers to approve projects compromises system integrity and centralizes land use decisions under provincial authority, justified by the housing crisis. Former NDP minister Darlene Marzari expressed concern that this could lead to senior bureaucrats and developers dictating development across the province, potentially altering the character of municipalities. This move is compared to the "Ontario model," where the provincial government is standardizing community plans, raising fears of eventual amalgamation and provincial control over zoning.
