OAA study reveals inefficiencies in project planning

The design and construction industry in Ontario is a major player in the health of the provincial economy, providing employment to more than half a million Ontarians and generating more than six per cent of the province’s GDP.

It is carried out by a range of players from large national organizations who have international reach, to a multitude of smaller participants who work only in their local environments. For various reasons beyond our control, the industry is also attracting offshore international organizations given Ontario's strong construction economy.

As part of its role, the industry employs a wide range of consultants including architects, other design professionals and environmental experts, all of whom are critical to the provision of the physical spaces that are required to run the economy. Holistically, it is an expensive and risky business regardless of the size of any particular development.

Yet just arriving at the building permit stage of a project prior to construction is complicated, difficult to navigate, often protracted and certainly costly — while at the same time deriving no income. Part of the reason for this is the approval process administered by the various Ontario municipalities under the Provincial Planning Act. These bodies implement Section 41 of the act and have the power to expand on certain elements through their official plans and site plan control bylaws. Notably, the application of these powers is not consistent across the province.

Recognizing the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA)'s responsibility to serve and protect the public interest, the OAA commissioned an independent study to identify problems in the process, asking expert consultants from Bousfields Inc. and the Altus Group to examine the system and come up with recommendations for how it might be improved.

The task consisted of researching site plan approval practices in small, medium and larger municipalities; consulting with practising members of the OAA and planning directors; and roundtable discussions with members of the development industry. It also included economic research and modelling by the Altus Group on the costs associated with the current process.

The report found the process is being applied inconsistently across the province and takes an inordinate amount of time which translates into higher costs borne by the end user. The majority of applications require multiple, time-consuming submissions. As the process often lacks a point person to keep it moving, various parties also tend to blame others for the delays.

Bousfields suggested a number of ways to improve the efficiency of the process. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing could issue guidelines on how to properly implement the present legislation.

These guidelines should explicitly state the purpose of the site plan control provisions, set out the extent to which municipalities could control exterior design, offer best practice guidelines, and propose streaming of certain applications.

In addition, Bousfields suggests that the introduction of pre-application meetings, as well as the provision of dedicated staff responsible for the process from beginning to end, could help create a more efficient system.

Bousfields proposes a serious examination of the feasibility of introducing a development permit system, whereby the zoning, minor variance and site plan approval processes are combined into a seamless arrangement.

This system exists in other provinces, has been used in some municipalities in Ontario and will soon be piloted within the City of Toronto. It would have the likely benefit of simplifying the whole procedure.

In these challenging economic times, the province must continue to have a vibrant economy while offering sustainable employment to the people of Ontario. An efficient approval process for development is critical to this endeavour.

The OAA is a member of the Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario.