In 2012, a development proposal for a patch of farmland on Sebringville’s edge was
quietly shelved. The project faced a wall of provincial safeguards: a firm Environmental
Assessment process, strict groundwater protection rules, and a public system that, while imperfect, still provided oversight.

Fast forward to 2025. The same land is back on the table, but the stakes and risks have
multiplied. The new proposal includes more than twice the number of homes,
introducing an urban-style development into a rural village. Sebringville remains a
quiet, car-dependent community shaped by residents who value open spaces, a close-
knit atmosphere, and reliance on private wells and septic systems. Its groundwater
remains vulnerable. The safeguards that stopped the 2012 proposal have been effectively
dismantled.

What is unfolding in Sebringville offers a preview of what Ontario can expect under Bill
5, a law that has weakened environmental oversight and sidelined local voices in the
name of streamlining growth.

From caution to rubber stamp
In 2012, Ministry of the Environment correspondence responding to the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Sebringville subdivision outlined concerns about water supply, wastewater, and servicing options. Officials warned that the development would effectively create a bedroom community reliant on private servicing and urged the developer to consider connections to existing municipal systems and regional impacts. They noted, “The criteria used in the report may point to a solution that is more in keeping with the developer’s interests than the municipalities.”

Today, those warnings have been set aside as the new proposal advances with minimal
resistance. The 2025 plan relies on a communal servicing system previously flagged as high risk, drawing from the same aquifer system that supplies hundreds of homes and farms. Instead of regional planning it depends on fragmented, developer-led studies.

Independent hydrogeological reviews, once routine for projects of this scale, are now
optional unless explicitly required by local decision-makers. There is still no evidence
that this servicing approach is viable or will avoid negative impacts on the broader
community.

Profits over protections
At the center of Sebringville’s proposal is a private communal water and wastewater
system designed to serve only the new subdivision. This system is critical to the project’s financial viability yet it comes with unanswered questions about safety, sustainability, and cost. There is no documented reserve fund, no independent lifecycle cost analysis, and no clear plan for who would be responsible if the system fails or requires major repairs.

Station Road, a narrow, mature tree-lined country road, is planned as the only access
route for the subdivision and future residents. In its current form, it is too narrow to handle construction equipment and additional traffic, making reconstruction essential for the project to proceed. To support this the township secured $1.19 million in provincial funding to rebuild the road. Critics describe this as a targeted subsidy intended to enable the subdivision rather than a true investment in public infrastructure. The road reconstruction now appears set to move forward even though the development it supports remains controversial and not yet fully approved.

Meanwhile, fundamental questions about water security, system sustainability, and
long-term financial viability remain unanswered, highlighting how road access is
prioritized while critical environmental and fiscal concerns are left unresolved.

Despite the scale of these decisions, local governance structures have not requested
detailed financial projections or fully assessed the long-term risks. These gaps leave current and future homeowners vulnerable to significant financial and environmental liabilities. In 2012, agencies warned that residents could ultimately bear these consequences if the project moved ahead while the developer would proceed with minimal risk. More than a decade later, those warnings are still relevant.

A preview of what’s coming
Sebringville is not an isolated case. It reflects an approach that appears to be enabled by Bill 5: developer-led, consultant-supported, and politically facilitated. The community carries the risks, including groundwater depletion, potential contamination, and rising maintenance costs, while the developer collects profits and avoids long-term responsibility.

Supporters of Bill 5 describe these changes as cutting red tape to encourage development but the streamlined requirements included essential reviews and public safeguards that once protected communities like Sebringville. While Bill 5 does not explicitly allow councils to defer to developers it has created an environment where councils can proceed without independent reviews, effectively relying on developer-led studies and private interests without strong procedural checks.
This pattern aligns with concerns raised by environmental and Indigenous organizations when Bill 5 was passed at Queen’s Park. With environmental reviews weakened and the duty to consult Indigenous communities reduced, similar projects may become more common across Ontario.

In Sebringville, the aquifer remains the community’s only source of water. If it is
compromised, there is no backup. If the communal system fails (and similar systems
have failed elsewhere) the township and taxpayers will bear responsibility for
remediation and ongoing costs.

An echo of 2012
The same land, the same consultants, and many of the same policy questions remain.
What has changed is the political and regulatory environment. In 2012, evidence and caution prevailed. In 2025, those values seem to have been replaced by expedited
approvals.

Sebringville straddles both Perth South and Perth East, yet only Perth South is co-
proponent, and it does not appear to have fulfilled the responsibilities that role
demands. Enabled by weakened oversight, local decision-makers have stepped back,
allowing private interests to shape decisions with significant long-term implications for
safety and sustainability.

The Perth East side of Sebringville also faces risks as aquifers and drainage systems do
not recognize municipal boundaries. Despite this, Perth East residents were not engaged
in the Environmental Assessment process. While Perth East has no financial or
operational responsibility for the communal servicing systems its residents still rely on
the same vulnerable aquifer and could face environmental consequences. Notably, no
council members from either municipality live within the zone of highest risk, further
distancing decision-makers from the impacts that residents and future homeowners may face.

Officials in 2012 also questioned the absence of proper alternatives analysis, highlighted
the risks of prioritizing private interests, and warned of the long-term consequences of
relying on development-only servicing instead of integrated regional planning. It was clear that new residents would depend almost entirely on Stratford’s services while paying taxes to Perth South and Perth County, leaving Stratford to carry the burden without financial support. The opportunity to coordinate a regional growth strategy recently existed through the new Perth County Official Plan but was not taken. Instead, the 2012 warning is now becoming reality as officials work to make this single development ‘fit’ despite broader planning conflicts using an approach that amounts to a workaround rather than true regional planning.

These cautions were enough to halt the project in 2012. In 2025, they have been largely disregarded. Local governance structures have moved away from their intended role, allowing a single development to proceed while many residents concerns are not addressed. This shift overlooks the fundamental purpose of the Environmental Assessment process: to guide decisions that serve entire communities rather than individual developments.

Public consultation failures
The Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process include public engagement as a core requirement to ensure projects serve entire communities rather than private interests. In Sebringville this principle has been
effectively sidelined. Delegations have been blocked and council agendas, minutes, and
staff reports have included little substantive information. Rather than advocating for
community interests local decision-makers have relied on a consultant paid by the
developer tasked only with reviewing the developer’s technical submissions. This
consultant’s role does not extend to addressing resident concerns or providing
independent analysis.

Public consultation has been a single drop-in poster board session hosted by the
developer’s consultants. Promised formal public meetings did not happen. Community
questions have been repeatedly left unanswered. Independent findings, including technical concerns raised by Arcadis, a global independent engineering and consulting firm specializing in water, environmental, and infrastructure projects, detailed submissions from residents, and feedback from other independent consultants, have been ignored, leaving public concerns and critical evidence buried.

Residents respond
Residents have formed Get Concerned Perth County, raising concerns with the Ministry
of the Environment, the Ontario Ombudsman, and professional oversight bodies. The group continues to request independent reviews and adherence to planning policies, but as oversight structures weaken, options for accountability continue to narrow.

Get Concerned Perth County formed after attempts to raise concerns through council
meetings and formal processes were repeatedly dismissed. The group represents a community left vulnerable by reduced oversight and policies lacking enforcement. It provides independent analysis, clear information, and a collective voice to help residents understand risks and engage in decisions that will transform their community.

The lesson for Ontario
This is not about stopping growth. It is about ensuring growth happens responsibly,
safely, and in the public interest. Bill 5 is often presented as a solution to housing and
growth challenges but it does not address underlying issues such as infrastructure
capacity, water security, or long-term community planning. Instead it removes
safeguards without solving core problems.

Rural villages and small townships are particularly exposed. Lower land costs make
them attractive targets for speculative development and small councils often lack
resources and technical expertise to evaluate long-term impacts. These communities can
become reliant on the promise of new tax revenue leaving them more open to projects
that prioritize private interests over responsible, community-based planning.

There is an undeniable and inconvenient reality: we cannot simply build wherever we
wish, because real limits exist. Water is one of the most critical, especially for communities that rely on groundwater rather than large municipal systems or surface water sources like most large cities. This is why the Provincial Policy Statement acknowledges limits to growth and emphasizes the need to protect resources and ensure infrastructure and servicing can support new development sustainably. The Provincial Policy Statement is meant to guide land use planning in a way that balances development with natural resource protection, promotes efficient infrastructure use, and supports long-term community and environmental resilience.

Bill 5 itself does not erase the Provincial Policy Statement or local Official Plans which still guide how growth should occur. The flaw lies in the assumption that streamlining approvals and reducing oversight will automatically deliver more housing without unintended consequences. This only works if councils fully uphold their responsibilities and if local decision-makers always know and act in the best interests of their communities without undue external pressure.

In reality, local councils are not technical experts, which is why the Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process exist as critical safety nets. These frameworks ensure that complex environmental and infrastructure decisions are guided by evidence and the broader public interest, not left solely to local discretion. Sebringville’s
immediate future may illustrate what happens when these limits and protections are set aside leaving communities to bear risks that private interests do not.

Where does that leave Sebringville residents? Exposed to consequences without oversight or meaningful recourse, they face real risks to their water, health, and financial stability, yet are offered no real opportunity to influence in decisions that will shape the future of their village. Council cites landowner rights and developer financial thresholds while long-term community and environmental costs go unaddressed. When residents seek answers, they are directed to websites with limited or no substantive information, excluding them from decisions that directly affect them.

If this can happen in Sebringville, it can happen anywhere in Ontario.

Adrienne Tuling, Sebringville resident