Concerned group wants to save Barker's Bush

By Lindsay Grummett, Special to B-cause

On February 17th, representatives from Barker’s Bush addressed council with one clear goal: to prevent residential development growth in the Nith Peninsula woodlands and wetlands, and more specifically, to save Barker’s Bush.

The room was tense as Grace Larche and Lorna Nowicki-Prime took the floor to voice their concerns on the proposed residential development that is set to place over 400 homes in the Barker’s Bush area.

In addition to raising development concerns, the delegation requested that council hold public meetings before decisions are made for rezoning in order to better maintain green space in Brant County.

“Brant County is a collection of rural communities,” Larche said during her presentation. “If we are going to flourish as rural communities, all planning in the county needs to be driven by a clear vision of what we value about what makes us rural.”
A petition with 3,728 signatures was presented to council, indicating the large number of area residents opposed to residential development in Barker’s Bush due to “environmental, cultural and recreational” reasons.

Coun. Cliff Atfield asked the group representatives whether they were seeking professional representation for this issue.

According to Nowicki-Prime, the group is looking into it in order to take the issue to a higher level if necessary.

As the area has already been zoned as residential and bought out by developers, Coun. Atfield worries that without proper legal representation, the outcome for those against the development may be bleak. Others on council shared his concern.

“How will the public input impact recommendations as it relates to applications being recommended for approval or not for approval?” Coun. Robert Chambers asked of staff.

According to Senior Planner Marcus Davidson, there are “times when information comes from the public that wasn’t known by staff [and] instances where residents have had an impact on the outcome.”

Upon the departure of the delegation from the meeting, Coun. Chambers was still uneasy about the situation.

“[It’s a] hell of a dilemma and I’m feeling uncomfortable about it.”

He questioned the planning committee a second time on the ability of the public voice having an impact on decisions.

The planning committee was more candid this time.

“Essentially a planner is looked at for guidance for approval,” Davidson said. “The sheer volume of expressions of support or displeasure isn’t the same weight as councillors.”

This didn’t sit well with many of the councillors, including Coun. Chambers.

“We’re a small town and need to not be treated like a big city,” he said.

With 80 years of development designated, the council members seems to have their hands tied by decisions that were made years ago with regards to the county’s Official Plan.

According to Coun. Chambers, “there is so much designation of residential land that we are at the mercy of our own designation."