Let's talk about the Brantford Airport

Thank you for sharing your perspective. We appreciate residents engaging with this proposal from a range of viewpoints, including the potential for the airport's long-term growth and development.

To clarify, the proposed boundary adjustment is about municipal jurisdiction over the airport and surrounding lands. It does not itself include a plan to purchase additional land or to expand the airport. Any future proposal involving land acquisition, airport expansion, or new development would be a separate matter requiring its own planning process, financial analysis, and public consultation before it could move forward.

We've noted your comment as part of the engagement record that will be presented to both Councils, alongside the full range of perspectives shared through this process. Thank you again for taking the time to provide your feedback. 

Thank you for your feedback. We wholeheartedly agree that local farmland, healthy waterways, and natural areas are critical to food security and a community's long-term wellbeing.

For your reference, the proposed boundary adjustment does not remove farmland from production, change agricultural designations, or approve any development. Agricultural and natural heritage protections on these lands remain in place under the County of Brant's Official Plan and Zoning By-law and would continue under comparable protections if the lands are formally brought into the City's planning framework. Both the City and County are required under Provincial planning policy to identify, map, and protect agricultural land, and any future proposal to change that designation would require a comprehensive evaluation process demonstrating need and considering alternatives, including lower-priority agricultural lands, before any change could be approved.

We also want to share a recent update on where this process stands. Over the past month, the City and County have collected extensive input through this public engagement campaign, and your feedback, along with that of many other residents, is being taken seriously. Both City and County representatives are now carefully reviewing the proposal and are seriously considering changes that directly respond to the concerns and perspectives shared by residents, including concerns like yours about farmland and the natural environment. Both Councils will be considering potential revisions to the original proposal over the next few weeks, with statutory meetings likely to be held toward the end of July. Any proposed changes will be shared publicly in advance of those meetings, so the community has sufficient information and time to review and respond.

We recognize that the broader pattern you describe, the gradual loss of wetlands, natural areas, and farmland over time, is a legitimate concern that goes beyond any single proposal. Your perspective on local food production and the value of preserving farmland has been heard and is part of the feedback now shaping the City and County's ongoing review of this proposal.

Thank you for your comments and for emphasizing the importance of protecting farmland, natural systems, and water resources for future generations. We recognize that farmland and food security are critical issues. Provincial planning policy, including the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, requires municipalities to protect prime agricultural areas and strictly limits the removal of farmland from production. The proposed boundary adjustment does not change land use permissions. Agricultural designations and zoning would remain in place, and any future changes would require a separate planning process that must demonstrate clear justification and be consistent with Provincial policy. 

In addition, existing agricultural and natural heritage protections would continue to apply regardless of municipal jurisdiction. Lands would retain their current designations and safeguards, and any future proposal affecting farmland or environmental features would require detailed study and public consultation through public statutory planning processes. 

We also hear your broader concern about the long-term value of farmland, nature, and water systems. This perspective is important, and the feedback received is helping to inform ongoing discussions. Thank you again for sharing your input and for your commitment to these issues.

Thank you for your questions and an opportunity to help clarify. 

On the plan for airport expansion, there is no finalized expansion plan. The proposed boundary adjustment establishes jurisdiction. It does not approve, fund, or commit to any specific development, runway extension, road, or bridge. Any future proposals for airport expansion, an aviation business park, road infrastructure, or any other development on these lands would need to go through their own individual planning and public engagement processes before any development could be finalized or approved. Those processes would include detailed studies, costing, evaluation of alternatives, and public consultation. None of that work has been completed because no specific development proposal currently exists. Plans cannot be presented because they have not yet been developed, and they cannot be developed through this current process alone. That is how the planning system in Ontario is designed to work.

On the comparison to the previous annexation, we understand why that history raises questions about intent and follow-through. What we can say is that this proposal is specifically scoped to the airport and surrounding lands, and that the purpose of aligning jurisdiction with the City's existing ownership and operational responsibility for the airport is distinct from a general land supply expansion. Agricultural and natural heritage designations on the proposed transfer lands remain in place and are protected under Provincial planning requirements that apply equally to the City of Brantford and the County of Brant. Any change to those designations would require a comprehensive evaluation process under the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including demonstrating need, avoiding Prime Agricultural Areas, and considering alternatives. None of these steps can be bypassed or predetermined by this proposed boundary adjustment.

On the question of farmland and food security, these are serious concerns and ones that Provincial planning policy is specifically designed to address. Ontario's Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 requires municipalities to protect prime agricultural areas and restricts the removal of agricultural land from production. The City would be bound by those same requirements following any boundary transfer. The boundary adjustment does not remove farmland from production. Land use and zoning designations remain unchanged until a separate planning process changes them, and any such process would be required to demonstrate justification under Provincial policy.

On the financial questions, detailed financial planning for any future airport development, or the West Brant Access Route is not part of this proposal and has not been finalized because those projects that have not been finally approved yet. Financial costing, funding sources, and value assessments would be components of the separate planning and budget processes that any such project would need to go through before Council could approve them.

On environmental, noise, and agricultural impact, these studies are not required at this time because the proposed boundary adjustment does not authorize any activity that would trigger them. Those studies become requirements when a specific development or infrastructure proposal is brought forward, at which point they are mandatory components of the planning and approval process, not optional considerations. We also agree that Indigenous consultation is important, and similarly will ensure those discussions take place when required. 

On the pace of the process, discussions between the City and County on this boundary adjustment have been underway for several years. The current public engagement period is the public-facing phase of that longer process, not a compressed timeline imposed without foundation. No final decision has been made, and the statutory public hearings anticipated in July are a further required step in the process. Should both Councils decide to move forward, Provincial approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is also required before any boundary adjustment takes effect.

Your concerns about farmland, food security, financial accountability, and the pace and transparency of this process are noted, and your submission will be included in the engagement record presented to both Councils. We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Thank you for attending the open house and for taking the time to share your observations and questions. We appreciate the opportunity to respond directly to what was discussed at the session and to the concerns you've raised.

On the term "opportunity," this word refers to the City's ability to plan for the airport's long-term future, not to any current or hidden plan for development. Long-range municipal planning is, by definition, about preparing for needs and possibilities that may arise years or decades ahead, not only about what is being built today. Part of responsible municipal governance is ensuring that the City has the planning authority and tools in place to respond to future opportunities and challenges as they arise, particularly for an asset like the airport that the City has owned and operated for decades. That is the role of long-range planners, and it is the reason jurisdiction matters even when no immediate development is planned.

On the need for the land, the boundary adjustment is not about acquiring land for housing or employment development. The City's position, consistent with what was shared at the open house, is that this proposal is specifically about the airport facility and surrounding lands. The Brantford Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Brantford, but the airport currently sits within the County of Brant's jurisdiction. That means the City is responsible for the airport's planning, maintenance, leasing, and long-term management, while the land beneath it falls under a different municipality's planning authority. This proposal would bring jurisdiction over the airport lands in line with the City's existing ownership and operational responsibility. It does not, on its own, change land use, designations, or zoning.

On services, you're correct that the County currently provides certain services to the airport lands. The boundary adjustment, and the related restructuring agreement, would address how servicing, roads, water, and wastewater matters are handled going forward, consistent with how previous boundary transitions in this region have been managed.

On the agricultural designation under the 1980 Brant/Brantford Agreement and Provincial Bill 180, lands within the proposed transfer area would retain their existing agricultural and natural heritage designations and protections under the County's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The proposed boundary adjustment on its own does not remove or override these protections.

Regarding the timeline, discussions related to this boundary adjustment have been underway for several years between the City and County. The MOU reflects the outcome of that extended process, not a sudden or compressed decision. The current engagement period is the public-facing phase of that longer process.

To your direct question of what is not being shared, there is no undisclosed development plan, no hidden land use change, and no current proposal beyond the boundary adjustment itself. If and when any future development proposal is brought forward, it would go through its own complete planning process, including environmental review and public consultation, separate from this proposed boundary adjustment initiative.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Thanks for your question. The City is reviewing several feasible options for financing the proposed boundary adjustment and will be presenting the optimum option to Brantford City Council at the Statutory Public Meeting anticipated to be held during the week of July 6th. Once confirmed, the dates of both Municipal Council statutory public meetings will be promoted publicly. 

Hi Beth. Thank you for your detailed submission. As what you describe are natural assets that are unique to our community, the value you place on farmland, natural areas, trails, and river systems is widely shared, and your questions deserve clear and direct answers.

To start with the most important clarification: the current proposal is a municipal boundary adjustment only. It does not approve, fund, or commit to an airport runway extension, expanded operations, or any conversion of farmland to development. The boundary adjustment changes which municipality has jurisdiction over the airport and surrounding lands; it does not change land use, zoning, or agricultural designations. Those protections remain in place under the County's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. If or when the lands are formally brought into the City's framework, comparable designations and protections would still apply.

Because runway extension, cargo or passenger operations, and farmland conversion are not part of this proposal, the economic impact, cost, and return-on-investment information you're asking for does not currently exist as part of this process. There is no specific development proposal to evaluate. If and when any such proposal is brought forward in the future, it would go through its own planning process, which would include a public economic analysis, environmental review, and significant public consultation opportunities specific to that proposal.

Addressing your specific questions:

On the Province's role, Provincial involvement is a legal requirement of any municipal boundary adjustment under the Municipal Act and final approval of a proposed boundary adjustment rests with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This is standard procedure for boundary changes between any two Ontario municipalities and reflects a procedural requirement, not a Provincial interest in airport expansion.

On runway extension and cargo aircraft, no runway extension is proposed or approved. On passenger and general air traffic, no increase in passenger service or general air traffic is part of this proposal; any future change to airport operations would be a separate matter subject to Transport Canada oversight and its own regulatory and consultation requirements.

On traffic on Colborne Street West and Rest Acres Road, on noise, and on impacts to ecosystems, wildlife, and green space, none of these are projected impacts of the boundary adjustment itself, because the boundary adjustment does not authorize any activity that would cause them. If a future development proposal were ever brought forward, traffic, noise, and environmental impact assessments would be required components of that separate planning and public engagement process.

On property values and community livability, the City is not aware of studies specific to this proposal, as the proposal does not change land use or trigger development. The City's Economic Development Strategy does identify long-term potential for the airport, including a possible aviation business park, however; any such proposal, now or in the future, would require the full evaluation, environmental review, and consultation process described above, with its own opportunity for public input and would not be advanced through this proposed boundary adjustment.

On the pace of consultation, the engagement period is not limited to the June 11 open houses. The engagement campaign launched on May 27th and remains open for questions and comments until the end of June. All input will be part of the formal engagement record presented to Council ahead of any decision regarding a proposed restructuring agreement. The statutory public hearings anticipated for the week of July 6th are a further opportunity for public participation.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Thank you for your feedback, and for the care reflected in how you've framed these questions. You are absolutely correct in that the shared connection across the Grand River watershed and the Carolinian forest systems is without boundaries, and it is appropriate that you would have an interest in this important issue. 

On Natural Heritage System protections, both the City's and County’s Official Plans identify and protect Natural Heritage System (NHS) features in a similar manner, and both require that any proposed changes affecting these features be studied carefully with appropriate protective measures applied. Under the proposed boundary adjustment process, Agriculture and Natural Heritage System lands would continue to be designated and zoned under the County's Official Plan and Zoning By-law until they are formally brought into the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law over time. At that point, comparable designations and zoning provisions would be applied to transition these lands under the City's planning framework. This is not a gap in protection but rather the standard mechanism by which jurisdictional change occurs while maintaining continuity of land use designation.

We understand your concern is rooted in the 2017 experience, where lands previously designated as Core Natural Areas were later redesignated. To confirm, any future proposal to change a Natural Heritage System designation, whether under County or City jurisdiction, now or after any potential future transfer of jurisdiction would be required to go through its own comprehensive evaluation process, including conformity with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, professional environmental study, and public consultation through statutory processes. That requirement exists independently of which municipality holds jurisdiction. Your request that these protections be made explicit and tested now, rather than assumed, is a reasonable one, and it is the kind of input that should inform the restructuring agreement discussions that remain ahead.

On Six Nations of the Grand River and the Haldimand Tract, we recognize the significance of this consideration and that it carries weight beyond standard municipal planning processes. Indigenous consultation obligations are an important component of planning and environmental processes in Ontario, and this is a matter the City takes seriously as discussions continue. We are not in a position to detail specific consultation activities through this platform, but we acknowledge that this is an important and distinct consideration raised in your submission.

On timing, we recognize the request to defer any decision until after the October 2026 election so a newly elected Council can weigh in. As noted in other responses on this platform, the work toward this MOU reflects a multi-year process between the City and County, and should the proposal be approved by both Councils, any future land use or development decisions affecting these lands, including any changes to Natural Heritage Systems or Agricultural designations would be separate matters requiring their own evaluation, environmental review, and public consultation. Those future decisions would fall to whichever Councils are in place when they arise, including a newly elected Council.

We recognize that a forest and river corridor, once altered, cannot be replaced, and that this is precisely why the protections and processes described above matter. Your submission, including the specific requests regarding binding protections, upfront environmental assessment, and Six Nations consultation, will be included in the engagement record presented to Council.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Hi Christian. Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns in detail. The issues you raise about the pace of the process, farmland, natural heritage, community trust, and long-term intentions are important and deserve a response.

On the question of timing and meaningful consultation, the public engagement process related to this matter began on May 27^th and is not complete. The MOU has been signed, but no final restructuring agreement has been approved, and no boundary adjustment has taken effect. Public engagement through this engagement portal, the open houses, and statutory public hearings will be part of the formal record presented to both City and County Councils before any final decisions are made. Residents are also invited to participate directly in the statutory public hearings anticipated during the week of July 6. 

It is also important to provide context on how this process arrived at this point. Boundary adjustment discussions related to the Brantford Municipal Airport have been underway for several years. The MOU represents the outcome of that extended period of work and negotiation between two municipalities, both of which are equal parties to the agreement. 

On long-term development intentions, the City's Economic Development Strategy does identify long-term economic development potential at the airport, including a possible aviation business park. That is a matter of public record. What the proposed boundary adjustment does not do is approve, fund, or predetermine any of that. Any future rezoning, development proposal, or change to land use would require its own individual planning process, environmental assessment, and public consultation each time, with meaningful opportunity for residents to participate. Those decisions would lie with whichever Councils are in place at that time, including newly elected Councils. The boundary adjustment changes jurisdiction. It does not hand any Council or any developer a blank slate.

On farmland and natural heritage, existing agricultural designations and environmental protections remain in place unless and until a future separate planning process changes them. Provincial policy, including applicable land use policy frameworks, continues to apply to these lands regardless of which municipality holds jurisdiction. The boundary adjustment does not remove those protections.

On the question of who this proposal serves, the City's position is that aligning municipal jurisdiction with ownership of the Airport and operational responsibility for an asset the City has owned and operated for decades is a legitimate and necessary step for long-term planning and governance. We recognize and respect that not all people share our view. What we can commit to is that the concerns raised here about farmland, rural character, community voice, and transparency are part of the public record and will be presented to both Councils as part of this process.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Hi Jo-Anne. Thank you for taking the time to write and for attending the open house. Your concerns are noted and this submission will be included in the formal engagement record presented to Council.

We want to address several of the specific claims raised, as we believe the public record warrants clarification.

The characterization that the MOU was developed without County of Brant involvement or input is not accurate. The MOU is a document signed by both the City of Brantford and the County of Brant. It reflects terms that both municipalities agreed to through a process that involved staff and elected representatives from both sides. The County is an equal party to the agreement and retains an equal voice in whether a final restructuring agreement moves forward. No proposed restructuring agreement can proceed without County Council's consideration and agreement. To suggest the County was deceived or excluded from a document it signed is a characterization the City respectfully disagrees with.

It is also important to provide context on how this process reached this point. The boundary adjustment discussions related to the Brantford Municipal Airport have been underway for approximately six years. This discussion did not emerge suddenly or without foundation. Reaching the point of a signed MOU represents years of work, discussion, and negotiation between two municipal governments. 

On the question of democratic timing, current Councils on both sides are duly elected and carry full authority to make decisions throughout their term. That is how municipal governance in Ontario functions. The upcoming election does not suspend the responsibilities or legitimacy of either Council.

On concerns about generational farms, natural heritage, and what the future holds for these lands, we want to be clear that the proposed boundary adjustment does not approve development, remove agricultural protections, or change land use designations. Those protections remain in place. Any future proposal affecting farmland, natural heritage systems, or land use including any airport-related development would be subject to its own individual planning process, environmental assessment, public consultation, and Council approval. Each of those decisions would be made separately, transparently, and with meaningful opportunity for public input. Critically, those future decisions would lie with whichever Councils are in place at that time, including newly elected Councils. The boundary adjustment does not hand any future Council a blank slate but rather, it changes jurisdiction, not land use.

We hope this information has helped provide clarification on the important issues you have raised.