Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Checks and Balances in Planning Decentralization: Lessons from Ontario

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Abstract

Recent discourses on planning reform have been characterized by a shift from centralized hierarchies and rigid tools to decentralized networks and “softer” tools. However, reforms have not been unidirectional, either because of pluralist decision-making, or of conscious attempts to assure checks and balances in the system. Understanding explicit and implicit checks and balances is crucial in the evaluation of planning systems and in assessing steps towards rescaling of planning powers. The analysis of the Ontario (Canada) planning system, consisting of a comprehensive overview and tracking several residential projects, identifies checks and balances that have accompanied decentralization of powers to local government. These consist of an effective provincial appeal board, binding provincial planning documents, municipal official plans approved by the province, and high quality planning bureaucracies at the local government level (benefitting from past municipal amalgamations), in a system not infested by endemic corruption. The provincial appeal system and the use of ad-hoc density bonusing as a major flexible planning tool are subjects of substantial controversy, but the Ontario system demonstrates checks and balances that involve the central state, local state and an autonomous appeal system, and a balance between elected decision makers and qualified professional bureaucracy.

The chapter is based on a study of comparative planning systems supported by Israel’s Planning Administration, led by Prof. Eran Feitelson, and on a study supported by a grant of the Halbert Centre for Canadian Studies. My thanks to Dr. Christina Cook for her legal review of the Ontario planning system, to Lionel Feldman—a Toronto urban affairs consultant since 1968—for his prime role in introducing me to people and facts, and to dozens of interviewees who gave me courteously and patiently hours of their time for my study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the thames gateway.Environment and Planning A, 41, 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2010). Spatial planning, devolution and new planning spaces.Environment and Planning C, 28, 803–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alterman, R. (2012). Land use regulations and property values: The “windfalls capture” idea revisited. In N. Brooks, K. Donaghy, & G.-J. Knaap (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of urban economics and planning (pp. 755–786). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, J.-A., Keil, R., & Young, D. (2009).Changing Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Columbia. (2014).Community amenity contributions: Balancing community planning, public benefits and housing affordability. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, G., Monk, S., & Whitehead, C. (2011). Delivering local infrastructure and affordable housing through the planning system: The future of planning obligations through Section 106.People Place & Policy Online, 5(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. G. (2002).A law unto itself: How the Ontario municipal board has developed and applied land use planning policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth, B., Nadin, V., Hart, T., Davoudi, S., Pendlebury, J., Vigar, G., Webb, D., & Townshend, T. (2015).Town and country planning in the UK (15th ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elinbaum, P., & Galland, D. (2016). Analysing contemporary metropolitan spatial plans in Europe through their institutional context, instrumental content and planning process.European Planning Studies, 24, 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (2010). European spatial planning: Past, present and future.Town Planning Review, 81, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filion, P. (2010). Reorienting urban development? Structural obstruction to new urban forms.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischler, R., Meligrana, J., & Wolfe, J. M. (2004). Canadian experiences of local government boundary reform: A comparison of Quebec and Ontario. In J. Meligrana (Ed.),Redrawing local government boundaries: An international study of politics, procedures, and decisions (pp. 75–105). Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galland, D. (2012). Is regional planning dead or just coping? The transformation of a state sociospatial project into growth-oriented strategies.Environment and Planning C, 30, 536–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getimis, P. (2012). Comparing spatial planning systems and planning cultures in Europe: The need for a multi-scalar approach.Planning Practice and Research, 27, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., & Oosterlynck, S. (2013). Spaces of neoliberal experimentalism: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality.Environment and Planning A, 45, 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, P. M., & Sorensen, A. (2015). Compact, concurrent and contiguous: Smart growth and 50 years of residential planning in the Toronto region.Urban Geography, 36, 127–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (Eds.). (2009).Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine-Schnur, R. (2013).Law, contracts and urban planning, legal aspects of development agreements between local authorities and private developers. Floersheimer Studies (Hebrew): Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, S., & Keil, R. (2012). The Ontario greenbelt: Shifting the scales of the sustainability fix?The Professional Geographer, 64, 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metrolinx. (2008).The big move, transforming transportation in the greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Greater Toronto Transportation Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millward & Associates. (2013).Securing cultural benefits: Approaches to the use of Section 37 for arts and culture facilities. Submitted to City of Toronto Cultural Services. Toronto: R.E. Millward.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. A. (2013a).Planning politics in Toronto, the Ontario municipal board and urban development. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. A. (2013b).Trading density for benefits: Section 37 agreements in Toronto, IMFG perspectives 2/2013. Toronto: IMFG, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2014). Spatial planning in the United Kingdom, 1990–2013. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. Blotevogel (Eds.),Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe (pp. 189–214). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAI. (2012). Open-ended planning (‘Startbeeldplanning’). Netherlands Architecture Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://en.nai.nl/platform/studio/item/_pid/kolom2-1/_rp_kolom2-1_elementId/1_1287557

  • Olesen, K. (2012). Soft spaces as vehicles for neoliberal transformations of strategic spatial planning?Environment and Planning C, 30, 910–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ontario, Ministry of Infrastructure. (2013).Growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe 2006, office consolidation June 2013. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005a).Greenbelt Plan. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005b).Provincial policy statement 2005. Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014).Provincial policy statement 2014, under the planning act. Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2016).Review of the Ontario municipal board, public consultation document. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagliaro, J. (2017, 17 February). Planning power and politics.Toronto Star.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razin, E. (2005). Determinants of residential sprawl in Canadian metropolitan areas. In O. Atzema, P. Rietveld, & D. Shefer (Eds.),Regions, land consumption and sustainable growth (pp. 59–77). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razin, E. (2015). District plans in Israel: post-mortem?Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33, 1246–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razin, E., & Rosentraub, M. (2000). Are fragmentation and sprawl interlinked?Urban Affairs Review, 35, 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (Eds.). (2014).Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Relph, E. (2014).Toronto, transformations in a city and its region. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, G., & Walks, A. (2014). Castles in Toronto’s sky: Condo-ism as urban transformation.Journal of Urban Affairs, 37, 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sancton, A. (2008).The limits of boundaries, why city-regions cannot be self-governing. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. (2009). Ontario. In A. Sancton & R. Young (Eds.),Foundations of governance: Municipal government in Canada’s provinces (pp. 20–69). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, A., & Hess, P. (2015). Building suburbs, Toronto-Style: Land development regimes, institutions, critical junctures and path dependence.Town Planning Review, 86, 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stead, D. (2012). Best practices and policy transfer in spatial planning.Planning Practice and Research, 27, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN-Habitat. (2009).Planning sustainable cities, global report on human settlements 2009. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Horst, H. (2016).The low sky: Understanding the Dutch. Schiedam: XPat Scriptum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R. K., & Imbroscio, D. (2013). Governing metropolitan regions in the United States. In E. Slack & R. Chattopadhyay (Eds.),Governance and finance of metropolitan areas in federal systems (pp. 290–323). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. (2007).The growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe in historical perspective. Toronto: Neptis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Urban and Regional Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Eran Razin

Authors
  1. Eran Razin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eran Razin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radzyner Law School, Gazit-Globe Real Estate Institute, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Amnon Lehavi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Razin, E. (2018). Checks and Balances in Planning Decentralization: Lessons from Ontario. In: Lehavi, A. (eds) One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation