Part 2.4: North Panel Region

Members: Frank Read (Vice-Chair),John Kendrew, William Norton

• Message from the Vice-Chair
• Map of Interior Panel Region
• Panel Statistics (April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007)
• Applications of Interest
• Issues of Interest

Message from the Vice-Chair

The Panel was extremely busy during the past year administering an extensive geographic area ranging from Terrace to Valemount (west to east) and Prince George to Fort Nelson (south to north). The Panel administers the largest ALR area in the province, constituting approximately 2.3 million hectares of ALR, about half the provincial total.

The Panel reviewed 123 applications in 2006/07, among the highest of each of the 6 panels. After resolving a number of outstanding issues at a meeting held between the Panel and the Regional District Fraser-Fort George, it was able to endorse the Pineview and Robson Valley Canoe Upstream official community plans bringing the entire Regional District (7 electoral areas) under delegated decision making. The agreement has now been in place for 6 years. An audit of the Regional District's decisions under the agreement was conducted by the Panel during the year which suggests the agreement is working satisfactorily.

In 2006 the Panel conditionally endorsed the South Peace Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), which laid the groundwork for the expansion of the City of Dawson Creek. The CDP followed the template of Fort St John and Area CDP, which was adopted in 2003/2004. Dawson Creek is undergoing an oil and gas exploration boom that is stretching its urban fabric. Other planning initiatives in the northeast include the adoption of the Fort Nelson Official Community Plan and the proposed Fort St John Fringe Official Community Plan.

The potential to delegate decision making authority to other regional districts will be explored. Extensive ALR areas and agriculturally supportive OCPs and zoning bylaws in the north may provide further opportunities for delegation.

Subdivision for a family member is an issue, as farmers seek to retain family members on farm properties to facilitate intergenerational transfers of assets and farmland. The Panel continues to take into account biophysical criteria, productive capacity of the land, and conflict potential when its reviews subdivision applications for relatives.

Oil and gas exploration on ALR land remains a source of friction between farmers and exploration and extraction companies. The Panel is working with the Oil and Gas Commission to ensure that agricultural values are protected to the greatest extent possible.

Map of North Panel Region

Area of Panel Region: 58,699,354 hectares

Area of ALR: 2,380,048 hectares

Panel Statistics (April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007)

Applications of Interest

The following selected example illustrates how the Agricultural Land Commission panels responded to proposals to change the ALR boundary or to requests for subdivision or non-farm use of ALR lands. Applications are considered on the merits of each case at hand in the context of the Commission's mandate and take into account an assessment of factors related to agricultural capability and suitability and impact upon the ALR.

The application was to exclude a 19 ha portion of the 49 ha property from the ALR for light industrial development. If excluded, the area was to be subdivided into approximately four 4.8 ha lots.

The property is part of a large block of land in and around Fort St. John that has been identified through a comprehensive planning and development process for future community development. In 2003, the Panel working with the Peace River Regional District, endorsed certain aspects of the Fort St. John and Area Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), which provided an identified land supply for future growth in the region over the next 20 years. In light of the CDP, the Regional District and the Panel have been entertaining applications and dealing with them in a manner consistent with the CDP's land use policies, designations and phasing plans.

The Panel found the Teed application to be consistent with the long-term objective of the CDP but it was identified by the Regional District as being within Phase 3 and therefore not part of current planning objectives. In July 2006, the Panel, following a close review of all of the factors affecting the application, including a meeting with the proponent decided to refuse the application. In making this decision, the Panel noted that it was premature to consider approving the application in light of its endorsement of the CDP and in advance of the substantial completion of Phases 1 and 2.

Issues of Interest

The following selected example illustrates how the integration and coordination of interests regarding land use planning and resource management require ongoing dialogue and collaboration between local governments and the Agricultural Land Commission.

In 2006/07, the Panel, the Peace River Regional District and the City of Dawson Creek concluded a collaborative land use planning exercise that addressed the growth pressures experienced by the City. The Commission did not agree with the Regional District's original proposal for the South Peace Comprehensive Development Plan, believing it to be too ambitious, and inconsistent with its mandate. However, following a land use analysis that assessed growth rates and the existing vacant land inventory, the Commission reduced and re-directed the original land use designation proposal by Dawson Creek for ALR land for commercial, industrial and residential development to areas less suitable for agriculture.