Comment
Rock and hard places
The County is in a tough spot. Picton Terminals has grand (perhaps fantastical) plans to expand the revenuegenerating opportunities of its port facilities on Picton Bay. Opponents to their whack-amole plans had pinned their hopes on local government’s land use planning powers to block the developer. But that looks doubtful this week. Planning staff have recommended that rezoning to allow Picton Terminals to expand its range of services, including a container transfer and storage facility, should be approved by council.
The outrage is already resounding around the County. Council will now face crushing and unrelenting pressure to reject the advice of its planning folks. To stop the expansion plans for Picton Terminals.
There are powerful arguments for putting a tight lid on this port facility and compelling it to work within extremely narrow and highly structured constraints. But the Planning Act is not the tool to impose these restrictions—not after the site has been used as a port for many decades. Council will endure withering pressure to overturn the Planning report. It is a dead-end. Instead, council and the community arrayed against the environmental threat posed by this expansion must coalesce and quickly pivot to more promising avenues to protect Picton Bay.
To be absolutely clear, Picton Terminals and its dreams of many more ships steaming in and out of the Bay is a real and demonstrated threat to Picton’s water supply. The pipe that draws the town’s water reaches about a third of a kilometre into the very shallow bay—near enough to the port and the pathway of incoming boats to make it exceedingly vulnerable.
The sediment below bears the residue of decades of industrial activity, including coal offloading and the fuelling of myriad recreational watercraft. Many of the larger ships that visit this port draught just above the sediment. Some likely churn a channel through the muck on their way to the terminal, throwing up untold materials— none of which we want near our water supply. In an earlier life as a port facility, the previous owners regularly dredged to ensure an unobstructed passage alongside their port. It is much too shallow.
Just three years ago, a barge sank at Picton Terminals resulting in the weeks-long disruption to Picton’s water supply— and causing the municipality a significant cost to truck water in to serve the community. It was a clear and unmistakable alarm, warning of the vulnerability of this water supply.
There can be no doubt that increased activity at this port—particularly by bigger boats laden with shipping containers—along with the proponent’s documented challenges in storing materials at this facility, represents a clear and present danger to Picton’s water supply.
It is Shire Hall’s duty and responsibility to protect it. Yet, the Planning Act isn’t the means to do this. Even a creative reading of planning rules won’t get us there. Any fight on this basis likely results in lengthy and costly adjudication with a predictable outcome.
This is because it is extremely difficult— and for good reason—for a municipality to remove or take away land use rights from property owners who purchase in good faith. Planning rules, once established, must be relied upon by owners of the property past, present and future. Councils cannot, and should not, arbitrarily diminish or take away these rights.
The Picton Terminals property was a port long before the current owners came along with their erratic notions of making it viable again. To ignore this fact is to misunderstand how Planning rules and regulations work. Planning applications comprise a series of pre-established tests: does it comply with the Official Plan, any secondary plans, the provincial policy statement etc. If the objective answer is yes, then it is no longer a question for the planning staff, or council for that matter. A litigious applicant will sue to force the municipality to compensate them for the earning opportunity taken away from them. And they will win.
This fight is about the environment. Full stop. The full might of public opinion and council influence must be applied to ensure that provincial and federal regulators, including Quinte Conservation, are protecting this waterway. Every day. Each of these guardians must be much more transparent and accountable in this responsibility.
It is necessarily a political fight. Todd Smith, Neil Ellis and other senior government officials must be enlisted to bring the matter to the top levels of their respective levels of government. They must understand that any additional costs or burdens in protecting this water supply should not be, and cannot be, borne by this community.
Our experience with these agencies over the past two decades does not inspire an abundance of optimism that they will do this eagerly or diligently. So it is up to us to persuade them. But pounding up on planning staff and badgering council to overturn their Planning staff’s conclusions won’t protect Picton Bay. Rather, we need to redirect our anger and frustration. We need to join with the municipality to create a common and united front—to compel the agencies whose responsibility it is to protect the water and protect the environment to do their job.
Comments (0)