Review of Provincial Policy Statements by FCA

Subject: FCA PPS Review Comparison of 2005-2012-2014 Versions
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:03:24 -0500 (EST)

The Federation of Citizens Associations (FCA) has developed this table comparing the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the proposed revisions from 2012, and the final 2014 version which will replace the 2005 version on April 30, 2014.

  • The PPS is the statement of the government’s policies on land use planning. It applies province-wide and provides clear policy direction on land use planning to promote strong communities, a strong economy, and a clean and healthy environment.
  • Municipalities use the PPS to develop their official plans and to guide and inform decisions on other planning matters.
  • The PPS is issued under section 3 of the Planning Act and all decisions affecting land use planning matters “shall be consistent with” the Provincial Policy Statement.

More information on the PPS is available at:

Thank you,

CC: […]
Sent: 27/02/2014 12:33:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: RE: FCA PPS Review Comparison of 2005-2012-2014 Versions

Dear Faith:
Thank you very much for your outstanding work on this!
The chronology and comparisons are very helpful for all involved with planning issues.
I am forwarding this to Bob for our website and distribution to our CA’s for more discussion.
Again thanks!
Sheila Perry,
FCA Planning and Zoning Committee

CC: […]
Subject: FCA PPS Review Comparison of 2005-2012-2014 Versions
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:21:31 -0500


I have updated my table which previously contained the 2005 and 2012 PPS versions by adding the 2014 version which was released this week. I have matched the text and identified where the changes were made to make it easier for anyone who wants to see the differences. There are a few spots where the matching was little difficult.

One disturbing thing that the Ministry did was to add the energy distribution and transmission systems in after the 2012 Draft was released. They have also removed institutions from the employment classification. They have changed “seniors” to “older persons” but have no definition for the latter. It is too bad it has been approved, as it could have done with another round of comments, particularly when they introduced new content.

Please feel free to post this on websites or distribute it to anyone else who may be interested in making the comparison



Comments are closed.