Consultation on upper-tier official plans, secondary plans, and site and area-specific policies

The government is seeking public feedback on proposed legislative changes under the proposed Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 and related regulatory changes to further support housing, economic, and infrastructure development, and advance key transportation and transit priorities.

Under the Planning Act, the foundational activity for most municipalities is making an official plan, a document that guides future development of an area in the best interest of the community as a whole. 

In Ontario, there are 3 types of municipalities: upper-tier municipalities (found within a two-tier municipal structure and comprised of 2 or more lower-tier municipalities), lower-tier municipalities (found within a two-tier municipal structure and making up part of an upper-tier municipality) and single-tier municipalities. Lower-tier and single-tier municipalities are also sometimes referred to as local municipalities.

Upper-tier Official Plans

Official plans for upper-tier municipalities with planning responsibilities deal with broad planning matters that affect more than one local lower-tier municipality. Official plans for lower-tier municipalities are required to conform with the upper-tier municipality’s official plan. Across the province, there are cases where the upper-tier municipality’s official plan functions as the official plan for all or some lower-tier municipalities within their jurisdiction that do not have their own official plans. Official plans are implemented locally through tools like zoning by-laws, site plans, plans of subdivision, and community planning permit systems. 

Secondary Plans 

Currently, some municipalities establish secondary plans in addition to the policies of broader application in their official plan. Secondary plans are adopted as amendments to an official plan. 

They are often created for areas undergoing significant change, like new neighbourhoods or redevelopment zones, to provide policy direction on context-specific factors that may not be addressed by the primary policies of the official plan (e.g. density, urban design). Many municipalities use secondary plans to manage complex areas like major transit station areas, employment districts, and rural settlements. Secondary plans are often used to help inform and manage infrastructure planning and investments for large developments. Some municipalities have a dozen or more secondary plans.

Site- and Area-Specific Policies (SASPs)

SASPs are provisions within the main part of the official plan or another part of the plan (e.g., secondary plan) that provide a further layer of local direction for a specific lot or group of properties. They are also adopted through official plan amendments and are generally intended to address unique conditions, special permissions, constraints, and modified development standards that are not adequately addressed by the primary official plan. Official plans may contain dozens to hundreds of SASPs. 

Recent Consultations

In fall 2025, the government consulted the public on a proposal to simplify and standardize municipal official plans (see ERO #025-1099).

What we heard: Official Plans for Upper-tier Municipalities

Official plans for upper‑tier municipalities were widely described as most effective when they focus on regional‑scale matters, such as growth management, infrastructure and servicing coordination, and cross‑boundary environmental or land‑use systems. We heard that upper‑tier plans should provide broad strategic direction, while lower‑tier plans should handle detailed, site‑specific implementation, reducing duplication, and improving clarity across the two levels. However, there were concerns expressed about certain instances when the lower-tier municipality does not have its own official plan and an upper-tier municipality’s official plan functions as the lower-tier municipality’s official plan. In these scenarios, official plans for upper-tier municipalities may need to include detailed policies. 

What we heard: Secondary Plans

The government heard from municipalities, school boards, and industry stakeholders that secondary plans are essential for managing growth, coordinating infrastructure and servicing, and ensuring area‑specific planning that reflects unique local conditions and community character. Many noted that secondary plans provide the necessary detail for phasing development, planning major transit station areas, employment districts, parks, schools, and servicing, while also supporting predictable development outcomes. 

Stakeholders told us that secondary plans help ensure coordinated, well‑sequenced development, preventing fragmented or unaligned growth and supporting effective infrastructure planning. They highlighted that these tools strengthen public engagement, provide clarity for both residents and developers, and help avoid conflicts or delays by setting clear expectations for how an area will evolve. 

We heard that site‑specific policies are also essential, as they allow municipalities to thoughtfully address unique parcel‑level conditions and opportunities that cannot be fully anticipated within a generalized, streamlined official plan framework.

Changes We’re Considering

We want to hear about whether the proposed standardized table of contents, schedules, and land use designations set out in the proposed Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 should be modified for upper-tier municipalities with planning responsibilities.

Proposed modifications for official plans of upper-tier municipalities could include:

• Limiting duplication with official plans of lower-tier municipalities by creating specific land use designations that only apply to official plans of upper-tier municipalities with planning responsibilities. For example, this could mean creating a broader land use designation that would combine the designations of Neighbourhoods, Mixed Use Areas, and Mixed Use Commercial Areas into a “Community Areas” designation. 

We are also consulting on a proposal to create a distinct framework with clear parameters for secondary plans and SASPs with the aim of increasing consistency across municipalities while preserving development permissions.

Proposed changes for secondary plans and SASPs could include:

• identifying the types of areas where secondary plans could be used
• separating secondary plans from the primary official plan, so they would exist as a standalone document while being subject to the same process requirements
• exempting secondary plans from Minister’s approval (lower-tier municipalities in upper-tier municipalities with planning responsibilities would not be exempt from approval by the relevant upper-tier municipality)

Discussion Questions: 

Secondary Plan and Site- and Area-Specific Policies 

• Which types of areas are most appropriate for the use of secondary plans (i.e. new neighbourhoods, growth areas, settlement areas, employment areas, and/or areas where there are land use compatibility concerns)? Are there additional types of areas or policy objectives that should be eligible or prioritized?
• What benefits or challenges, if any, might you anticipate if municipalities had the option to organize secondary plans as standalone documents, while still being subject to the same Planning Act processes that apply to official plans (e.g., notification, public meetings, appeals)?
• Looking ahead, how would a future framework support the ongoing applicability of existing secondary plans and SASPs? Are there any considerations we should keep in mind about how these documents are maintained or updated over time? Should we establish principles to evaluate and transition existing secondary plans and SASPs to a new framework, and if so, what should these principles include?
• Would you support exempting secondary plans from Ministerial approval (except for lower-tier municipalities within an upper-tier municipality with planning responsibilities)? What advantages or risks do you anticipate with this approach?
• What level of flexibility should municipalities retain to effectively implement, update, and maintain secondary plans under the proposed framework?

Upper-Tier Official Plans 

• In addition to considering a combined “Community Areas” use designation described above, are there other designations that would be useful for upper-tier official plans  that would help avoid duplication with lower-tier official plans?
• Are there any parts of the standardized table of contents, schedules, and land use designations outlined in ERO 025-1099 that would need to be modified or would not apply to official plans for upper-tier municipalities?
• Are there other considerations we need to take into account regarding the proposed framework for upper-tier official plans?