Municipal Election Survey

Our survey was sent to all candidates for mayor and city council. The replies appear below, with a section for each elected position.
---Conservation Action Committee

Nature London Survey

Nature London would appreciate your answers to the following.  Replies are to be sent to naturelondoncac@gmail.com no later than September 14th.   Responses and non responses will be posted on the Nature London website (naturelondon.ca) in one batch.  Nature London reserves the right to edit for length.  Good luck in your campaign.
London is known as the Forest City. Our parks and our Environmentally Significant Areas as well as our bicycle paths along the Thames River engage Londoners to explore and enjoy the outdoors and serve as an inducement to settle in our city.

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Ward 1

---------------------  Hadleigh McAlister

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?” 

Public parks provide dedicated green space and recreational amenities within the city. An Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) can exist within both agricultural and urban settings, including wetlands, forests and meadows, as well as valley lands, and significant wildlife habitat. There are 21 ESAs in London. The Meadowlily ESA is shared between Ward 1 and 14. I frequent it quite often and it is a natural gem I want to see preserved.  

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend? 

 

I do believe that having an Environmental Management Plan is important and helpful for the council when considering developments adjacent to the city' Natural Heritage System. I think that refinements to buffer zones could be helpful to ensure that natural heritage lands are not damaged and not entirely surrounded by developments.  

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend? 

 

Yes, I think the Environment Management Guidelines have served their purpose. They provide clear guidelines for applicants, city staff, and city council to reference when considering developments. In terms of improvements I have concerns about the monitoring of impacts on natural heritage sites during and after a development's completion. Every effort should be taken to minimize impacts on these sites but it is not possible to anticipate all of them. Frequent monitoring and compliance measures are necessary to ensure that appropriate buffers are maintained and that guidelines are being followed.  

Hadleigh McAlister

---------------------  Roger Caranci

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

A park is built for people. Playgrounds, diamonds, paths, and picnic tables belong there. Families should be able to use it. That only works if the City actually maintains it. Garbage, graffiti, needles, and tents cannot become the landscape. Daily or regular cleanup is part of my platform for that reason. An Environmentally Significant Area is different. It is kept because of what already lives there. Woodlands, wetlands, valleylands, and the functions they perform. Trails can let people enjoy it. The first job is to leave the system intact, not to turn it into another programmed park.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

It is useful when it is treated as a construction and monitoring document. The EMP is supposed to carry the approved Environmental Impact Study into detailed design, construction, and the years after occupancy. Too often the paper is accepted, the buffers shrink on site, and no one checks after the houses are sold. I would keep the requirement. I would tighten the follow-through. Conditions of approval that inspectors can enforce, monitoring during construction, and a short public report after the work is done. Neighbours next to an ESA should be able to see whether the plan they were promised was actually built.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

They have served a purpose. London needed one rulebook for how woodlands, wetlands, and ESAs are evaluated so every file is not a fresh argument. The 2021 guidelines, updated in 2025, give staff and applicants that framework. The gap is not the existence of the guidelines. It is whether they produce a result on the ground and whether a complete application is clear enough that good projects are not stalled in process for its own sake. I would keep the science current. I would make the “complete application” test plainer so applicants, conservation staff, and residents can follow the same list. I would tie the guidelines to the EMP monitoring above. A guideline that only produces thicker studies, without a protected feature and a checked buffer, has not finished its job.

Roger Caranci

Ward 2

---------------------  Shawn Lewis

Hello, thank you for sending these questions. Please see my responses below. 

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

Parks are meant to be active spaces with lots of options for human recreation, whether it is a casual family walk or organized sports leagues or anything in between.  There is an expectation of a higher level of maintenance and accessibility for all ages and abilities as well as an expectation of a diverse set of amenity offerings and locations.  ESAs on the other hand should primarily be viewed as areas to preserve the environment in it's naturally occurring state. Human activity and management of these areas should be minimized, and secondary to the natural environmnet, although some management of invasive species for example may be necessary from time to time. These should be spaces where the wildlife, be it plant or animal, has priority over people. In my view that includes minimize trail areas and avoiding paving over anything, even if that comes at the expense of reduced accessibility\. 

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

This is a useful process, having spent the past 4 years on the Planning Committee I have seen it in action.  At this time I do not thing there are any major changes needed.  The only concern I have is that the interpretation of "natural heritage" is sometimes questionable or tenuous. An example of what I mean (and I have seen both of these issues in real world applications) includes treating a storm water runoff ditch along a roadside, or a livestock watering pond, being referenced as "natural heritage" when both are in fact manmade features. 

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Having been a part of updating the EMGs in this term of council, I believe they do serve their purpose and as they've only recently been updated I do not believe there is a need to revisit for further changes at this time. 

Shawn Lewis

Ward 3

---------------------  Harkirat Kaur

Dear Nature London,

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I appreciate the work you do to protect London’s natural spaces and help residents connect with nature.

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

To me, a park is primarily a place for people—somewhere we can walk, exercise, spend time with family, or simply enjoy being outdoors. An Environmentally Significant Area has a different purpose. It protects natural features and ecosystems that are important for wildlife, biodiversity, water, and the overall health of our environment.

I think London needs both. We should make our parks welcoming and accessible while recognizing that some natural areas are more sensitive and need to be protected rather than developed or heavily used.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

I believe an Environmental Management Plan is a good tool, but its value depends on what happens after it is approved. A plan should not simply become another document in the development process—it should lead to real protection on the ground.

I would like to see stronger follow-up during and after construction, with clear responsibilities, measurable requirements, and meaningful enforcement when commitments are not followed. Residents should also be able to see what environmental protections were promised and whether they were actually implemented.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The guidelines provide a useful foundation, but I believe they should continue to evolve as London grows and as we learn more about protecting our natural environment.

I would support regularly updating them to reflect current environmental science, climate change, biodiversity, and the cumulative impact of development. The guidelines should be clear and practical, with expectations that can be measured and enforced.

For me, protecting London's natural environment is part of planning responsibly for the future. We can build the housing and communities London needs without losing the forests, wetlands, waterways, and natural spaces that make our city special.

Thank you again for giving candidates the opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,
Harkirat Kaur

---------------------  Zak Rahim 

A park is built for people to use it. An Environmentally Significant Area exists to protect what's already there. London has 21 ESAs covering more than 750 hectares, co-managed with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and they're part of the Natural Heritage System under the Official Plan, not the parks system. That's why the rules are different: yellow-blazed trails only, dogs leashed at two metres, no bikes off paved or gravel sections, no removing plants or disturbing wildlife, fishing only with a licence. Ward 3 sits right next to that distinction in practice: the Kilally corridor along our ward's boundary runs alongside Kilally Meadows ESA, so residents here can walk from a neighbourhood park into a protected natural area in the same afternoon without necessarily realizing the rules changed underfoot. A park asks how many people can enjoy it. An ESA asks how little disturbance it can tolerate and still function. Confusing the two, treating an ESA like an amenity to be optimized for access, is how you lose the thing that made it worth protecting in the first place.

q2:

Useful in principle, too slow in practice. Right now an Environmental Management Plan gets built on an Environmental Impact Study, then routed through sequential staff review, often without the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority weighing in until late in the process, on a file that's already stacked behind rezoning, servicing, and site plan review running on their own separate clocks. That's how a genuinely protective requirement turns into months of added timeline without anyone being able to point to better protection for the extra time spent. I'm pushing to cut municipal red tape that slows down building across the board, and this is a clear example: get the Conservation Authority and City environmental staff reviewing in parallel with planning staff instead of in sequence, and publish standard buffer and mitigation templates for common site conditions so straightforward files aren't waiting months for a custom review they don't need. Faster approvals and real protection aren't in tension here, the current process is just badly sequenced.

q3:Guidelines only work if they carry weight. Right now the Environmental Management Guidelines are exactly what the name says, guidance, not a requirement written into the zoning bylaw or site plan conditions that can actually be enforced. That doesn't protect the Natural Heritage System any better than a binding standard would. It just pushes every file into its own case-by-case negotiation between staff and a developer's consultant over what applies and what doesn't, which is slower and less predictable for everyone at the table, not more careful. Fixing this doesn't mean adding cost or process to development, it means the opposite: take the highest-value provisions, tree retention ratios, buffer widths, stormwater controls, and turn them into clear binding standards set before a project ever gets to site plan review. Everyone knows the rule going in instead of negotiating it file by file. Consistent, binding standards protect the Natural Heritage System and move faster than guidelines that get argued over every time.

Zak Rahim 

Ward 4

---------------------  Tom Cull

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

I understand a park as an important outdoor public space designed primarily for recreation, sports, and social gatherings. Parks are flexible spaces, and often feature picnic areas, playgrounds, off-leash dog areas, sports fields/courts. Parks are often characterized by mowed turf-grass lawn, flowerbeds, and public buildings (washrooms, pavilions, public stages etc.). In London, many public parks exist in floodplains unsuitable for development. Parks can be attached or remain separate from ESAs.

An ESA is a natural or naturalized public space, such as forests, wetlands, and meadows. Like parks, ESAs are managed, but with the goal of preserving and bolstering (through invasive controls, riparian restoration, etc.) the native biodiversity and unique geographical/geological characteristics of the area. Because ecological health is a priority in ESAs, public access to and usage of these places is restricted to more passive and unobtrusive activities such as hiking. Preservation of ESAs stems from two interrelated priorities: recognizing the ecosystem services that natural spaces provide (clean water, air, food systems maintenance, etc) and recognizing the inherent value and right to exist of natural spaces free from human imposition.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

As a new candidate, I do not have direct experience with the process; however, if elected, I would advocate for a process that creates binding planning parameters that minimize adverse impacts while enhancing the overall health of adjacent ESAs.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

EMGs set some minimum standards that can be enforced to protect ESAs; however, from what I understand and have seen, those standards are subject to change depending on the make-up of council and development and public pressure. If elected, I would push for ESA protection to be enshrined in policies and statutes that prioritize the enduring health of ESAs as a collective imperative.

Tom Cull

___________________

---------------------  Mario Jozic

1. A park is primarily designed and maintained for public recreation, with amenities such as sports fields, playgrounds, gathering spaces and maintained pathways. An Environmentally Significant Area is first and foremost a protected natural ecosystem.

Both allow Londoners to enjoy nature, but an ESA requires a lighter footprint. People should be welcomed while staying on designated trails, keeping pets leashed and avoiding activities that disturb sensitive habitat.

2. The process is useful because it requires environmental impacts to be identified and addressed before development proceeds. However, its effectiveness ultimately depends on the quality of the study, independent City review, enforceable approval conditions and follow-up after construction.

The objective should be responsible development that protects the Natural Heritage System in practice, not simply completing another study.

3. The guidelines have provided an important framework for identifying natural features, assessing development impacts and recommending protection and mitigation measures. However, guidelines only serve their purpose if they remain current, are applied consistently and produce measurable results.

They should be regularly updated to reflect climate change, extreme rainfall, invasive species, habitat fragmentation and current ecological science. The City should also improve public transparency, establish standard monitoring periods and report whether approved mitigation measures are actually succeeding.

Mario Jozic

---------------------  Randi Prunner

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an "environmentally
significant area?”
A: I see the difference being that a park is created with human interaction in mind, providing space and/or equipment to be active. An environmentally significant area would not be for human interaction, but to protect local wildlife and support sustainable ecosystems and prevent erosion around and within our city.  

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?
A: I think in theory this is a useful process, in practice all developers should be held to this component and not allowed to possibly buy or opt out of this requirement in the planning process. I also think that the information uncovered in an Environmental Management Plan should be taken into heavier consideration by developers in the planning process. Some potential improvements to this process could include holding developers accountable to any information found in a Plan, more community involvement (ie. more engagement from the community during the planning process), and improved, clear communication with regards to data obtained through surveying processes.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

A: In all honesty, I know very little about whether or not the Environmental Management Guidelines have served their purpose. Cursory research into this has not turned up much information, outside of the documents listed on the City of London website. In anecdotal evidence, and taking the definition of Environmental Management Guidelines at face value, I don't think we're adhering to the Guidelines as much as we should given the amount of environmentally significant areas being infringed upon with residential development. Being that I am lacking knowledge in this area, I don't feel appropriate recommending improvements. I would be invested in connecting with individuals who are more immersed in this process, to collaborate and learn more.

Randi Prunner

---------------------  Bob Wright

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

Yes, ESAs are areas that need to be not only enjoyed but respected and protected.  Which means keeping to existing paths and causing a minimum of disturbance of any kind.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

I believe it is a useful process as in it is a good exercise, has it made a difference – I have my doubts and has largely been overshadowed by Provincial legislation that deemphasizes the importance of environmental concerns and favours of development proposals.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Without teeth to enforce and follow up to ensure compliance they cannot serve their purpose.  Despite their limited usefulness in the current provincial context, I think they need to be maintained by the City so that we can demonstrate to future governments that environmental concerns were overridden in the context of new developments in the hope that some remediation might be provided.

Bob Wright

Ward 5

---------------------  Corrine Rahman

1. I spend as much time as I can in the Medway Valley ESA. What I’ve come to know, honour, and cherish about ESAs is that they are rare gems, that should be protected and retained in their natural state.

A park is an area set aside by the City for the enjoyment of nature, connectivity, hazard lands, and/or recreational use. I visit parks in the area for recreational purposes, to watch my children play sports, and to gather with the community.

2. The Environmental Management Plan was recently updated by Council, and I believe the updates provide greater clarity—from process improvements, including flow charts on how and when to engage with planning staff, to establishing clear buffers and guidelines. For these reasons, I believe it is a useful tool.

The improvements needed relate to monitoring, enforcement, and compensation. I would recommend that staff be directed to bring back a report on how the EMP can be better monitored and enforced.

3. No, the EMGs are important and necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas. As updates are brought forward, I would recommend that staff continue reviewing the guidelines and engaging with stakeholders to improve clarity, strengthen ongoing monitoring, and enhance First Nations engagement.

Thank you,

Corrine Rahman

---------------------  Mary Blake Rose

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you

see as the difference between a park and an environmentally

significant area?”

I believe that the purpose of a park is primarily recreational, while the purpose of an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) is primarily ecological. A recreational park can have significant infrastructure such as playgrounds, baseball fields, pickleball courts, splash pads, etc. On the other hand, an ESA is a natural heritage feature, so recreational infrastructure, if any, is typically limited to trails. 

Generally, people are encouraged to use the space in recreational parks: running around on the grass, playing a game of frisbee, having a picnic, and the like. In ESAs, interaction with the space is very different. People should use designated access points and remain on the trail. ESAs contain significant wildlife habitat and natural features such as wetlands, forests, and meadows that have important ecological roles, and care must be taken to protect these areas from being damaged by human visitors. While people can enjoy ESAs, public enjoyment is not their primary purpose. 

There is overlap between recreational parks and ESAs. For example, a recreational park can have something like a pollinator garden, and an ESA with a trail can be an enjoyable place to go for a walk. Fundamentally, though, the primary purpose of these two types of open space is different. 

Parks and ESAs are also different in the way that they come into being. Parks contain natural features such as trees and other vegetation, but they are generally something that we can create. ESAs, however, are natural areas that we protect. While we can do restoration and stewardship work, we can’t just build a new ESA.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage

System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the

developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements

would you recommend?

Environmental Management Plans translate ecological analysis into development requirements, and that’s a useful tool. One potential area for improvement would be the specificity of the monitoring. This relates to the challenge of making sure that recommendations actually translate into measurable actions, and don’t just remain recommendations.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their

purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

My answer to this question is similar to my answer to question #2. The framework is good, but making sure that recommendations translate to measurable outcomes can be a challenge.

In closing, I’d like to invite anyone from Nature London or anyone who is passionate about protecting ecologically important land to engage in dialogue on this matter because I believe you’ll find me to be a strong ally. The three questions posed here have decades of context behind them. I’ve followed some of these discussions, and have read up on others that predated me. However, I don’t claim to have all the context for these discussions. I was in high school 800km away from London when the original EMGs were adopted. You might be interested to know, though, that I was President of my school’s Society for Environmental Action at that time, and I now work for an environmental nonprofit. Protecting our natural environment is a top priority for me. I’ve worked in one way or another to protect the world around us for most of my life, whether or not I’ve been directly involved in all the same discussions that Nature London has been. If elected as a councillor, I would be a strong ally and would highly value any expertise and recommendations that Nature London and any friends of the organization would wish to share, so let’s talk.

Mary Blake Rose

Ward 6

---------------------  Naomi Nadea

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these important questions. As a candidate for London City Council in Ward 6, I believe London's identity as the Forest City comes with a responsibility to protect our parks, natural heritage, and environmentally significant areas while planning responsibly for growth.

1. Parks and Environmentally Significant Areas

In my view, parks and Environmentally Significant Areas serve different but equally important purposes.

Parks are primarily designed for public recreation, gathering, exercise, play, and enjoyment. Environmentally Significant Areas, however, exist first and foremost to protect important ecosystems, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, water systems, and natural processes. I would love to see more protection for Victoria Park, Gibbons Park, Harris Park to name a few.

Londoners should be encouraged to enjoy and appreciate nature, but enjoyment must not come at the expense of ecological protection. I believe we must respect the difference between spaces designed primarily for recreation and areas that require greater protection and stewardship.

2. Environmental Management Plans

Environmental Management Plans can be a useful process when they genuinely protect the Natural Heritage System and are supported by independent expertise, meaningful monitoring, and public accountability.

My concern is that requirements alone are not enough if plans are treated as paperwork rather than living commitments. I would support clearer standards, stronger monitoring, transparent reporting, and enforcement when commitments are not met.

Where development occurs near sensitive natural areas, environmental protection should be considered early in the planning process—not after major decisions have already been made.

3. Environmental Management Guidelines

I believe the Environmental Management Guidelines should be regularly reviewed to ensure they reflect current science, climate realities, biodiversity concerns, and London's rapid growth.

I would support improvements that strengthen protection for natural areas, establish clearer expectations for developers, improve transparency, and include measurable monitoring and enforcement.

London's natural heritage is one of our greatest assets. As we build more housing and infrastructure, we must ensure that growth does not gradually erode the very environment that makes London a desirable place to live.

My commitment is to support responsible growth while protecting the forests, rivers, parks, wildlife, and natural areas that make London the Forest City.

Sincerely,

Naomi Nadea

---------------------  Samuel Trosow

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

There is a significant difference that I worry is not well understood. In terms of purpose and use, ESAs are more restricted than parks with greater environmental protections. For example, visitors must stay on marked trails and there are other restrictions due to the sensitive nature of the lands. Use of parks anticipates more development of amenities such as cooking facilities, picnic tables, playground equipment, electrical outlets, and facilities for larger gatherings that can be rented. Parks are supervised by an internal city department operating under a Parks Master Plan whereas the Conservation Authorities are involved with managing the ESAs.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

I would support a thorough review of London’s EM Plan and better integrate it into the planning application process.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Yes, but it is a somewhat confusing and complex document to read, understand and apply to specific projects. So it is in need of review and revision.

In addition, there needs to be a more precise protocol on when and how the “duty to consult” with nearby Indigenous communities is required in the planning approval process.

Samuel Trosow

Ward 7

---------------------  Waseem Kazzah

1- A park is primarily designed for public recreation, with amenities such as playgrounds, sports fields, paths and gathering spaces. An environmentally significant area may also offer carefully managed public access but its primary purpose is protecting sensitive habitats, species and ecological functions. In short, recreation leads in a park; conservation must lead in an ESA. London’s own guidance recognizes that ESAs contain features warranting retention in a natural state.

2- Environmental Management Plans are useful when they influence a development’s design early, establish proper buffers and translate environmental studies into concrete protections. However, a plan is only effective if its commitments are implemented and monitored. I would support independent technical review where appropriate, better baseline data, consideration of cumulative and climate-related impacts, enforceable conditions, developer-funded securities, and public post-construction monitoring reports. London’s environmental-study process is intended to avoid impacts first and mitigate unavoidable impacts.

3- The Environmental Management Guidelines have served an important purpose by creating consistent standards for identifying features, assessing impacts and protecting London’s Natural Heritage System. However, guidelines must produce measurable results, not simply more reports. I would improve them through clearer performance measures, stronger construction and post-construction monitoring, transparent reporting, timely enforcement and regular science-based updates. Since revised guidelines were adopted in July 2025, Council should formally review their effectiveness after enough projects have gone through the full process.

Waseem Kazzah

---------------------  Sam Hajar

In my view and experience a park is in most cases a more maintained and developed space, with items like, playgrounds, sports fields, picnic areas, and paved paths. Parks are places for recreation and spending time outdoors.

• 1.      An environmentally significant area is more focused on preserving the natural environment and typically have natural trails, forests, wetlands, wildlife, and have less to no development. Environmentally significant areas offer more immersive and peaceful experience, while parks are generally more suited to outdoor activities and recreation.

• 2.      In my opinion and as lifelong resident of London Ontario

and my position as a City of London employee I think the Environmental

Management Plan (EMP) process is useful because it creates and ensures

environmental protection, restoration, mitigation, and monitoring measures are implemented

as each process is approved.

The process could be improved is in accountability, and transparency. I would implement performance targets, longer post-construction monitoring and stronger requirements for corrective action.

I emphasise that Environmental Management Plan is a valuable tool, but it must have consistent monitoring after approval and construction.

• 3.      I believe that think London’s Environmental Management Guidelines have mostly served their purpose. The guidelines provide a uniform framework for evaluating and determining appropriate developments, and identifying mitigation measures when development is proposed near sensitive areas. I think that there is always room for improvement. The guidelines can be improved by placing greater emphasis on long-term monitoring and accountability after development occurs, instead of solely relying on the assessment and approval stage.

Sam Hajar

---------------------  Dan Meinen

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

A park is land set aside for people, built and maintained for use. An ESA is land set aside for what's already there: a wetland, a floodplain forest, habitat that can't be rebuilt once it's gone. It's protected under The London Plan, and usually falls within the UTRCA's regulated area under the Conservation Authorities Act. Access has to fit around the ecology, not the other way around.

I see that from the inside. As a building inspector I deal with the conservation authority regularly, and I know what a regulated wetland or floodplain means on the ground. With 1,476 hectares just added to the urban growth boundary, much of it in the northwest, that matters for Ward 7. A park can be expanded or redesigned. An ESA can only be lost.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

It's useful in the way any plan is useful: it forces the questions to be asked before the first shovel goes in. Buffers, grading, stormwater, tree protection, invasive species. But its value depends entirely on implementation. Where it falls short is what happens after approval. The plan gets stamped, the subdivision gets built, and the monitoring and follow-through are left to the developer's consultant with limited City verification. Work gets cut short or done halfway more often than people realize, and without solid post-construction monitoring, nobody catches it.

I inspect buildings for a living. A plan on paper and what actually happens on a job site are two different things, and the difference is whether someone shows up and checks.

The other problem is buffer distances. Right now they're variable, negotiated application by application, and that's a big reason we end up at the Ontario Land Tribunal so often. Every appeal and hearing costs residents, the City and the developer time and money, and it produces inconsistent outcomes. What we need is a reasonable, defensible, fixed buffer distance from natural features. I'd advocate for roughly 45 metres as the standard. Today it usually ends up around 30 metres for sensitive features and 10 metres otherwise, and that gets argued down or contested far too often.

So my recommendations are practical:

• City staff, not just the developer's consultant, verify tree protection fencing, sediment control and buffer limits on site during construction, not just at sign-off.
• Hold securities until post-construction monitoring confirms the plan actually worked, and release them in stages.
• Make the monitoring reports public and easy to find, so residents and groups like yours can see what was promised and what was delivered.
• Set a fixed, defensible buffer standard in policy (in the range of 45 metres) so we stop renegotiating it application by application and stop feeding the OLT appeal cycle.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The EMGs sit on the planning side of the process, and I'll be straight with you: I haven't worked with them directly. My experience is with what comes after they've been applied, the Environmental Management Plans, zoning, and the conditions that end up on a permit. From that aspect, the guidelines are only as good as the follow-through. I work with the Building Code every day, and the reason it works is that it isn't negotiable on site. Whatever the guidelines require needs to carry through into binding conditions that City staff can actually verify in the field.

If groups like yours see specific gaps in the 2025 update, I'd want to hear them. That's the kind of expertise a councillor should be listening to rather than pretending to have.

Dan Meinen

---------------------  Jonathan Sher

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

          While we enjoy nature in both parks and environmentally significant area (ESA), ESAs possess qualities we need to protect against encroachment by people and invasive species. ESAs warrant preservation because of their features and/or ecological function. Examples include meadows, wetlands, forests and habitats with significant wildlife. Such areas warrant not only protection but when needed, restoration. Those objectives and associated strategies are laid out in the London Plan and Conservation Master Plan, and then implemented by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.  The URTCA lays out rules, enforces them and seeks to educate citizens to help preserve ESAs.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

The requirement for an Environmental Management Plan is useful but ongoing vigilance is required to make sure that developers provide sufficient clarity and the city sufficient oversight. Some plans in the past sometimes have lacked that clarity and oversight, omissions that create risks. Rather than address such shortcomings on an ad-hoc basis with each application, it also might be useful for the city to be more prescriptive about what it requires and more vigorous about its oversight. In determining which measures might be most helpful, I would seek guidance from those who have been most active in advising the city – their breadth of knowledge would far eclipse my own.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The Environmental Management Guidelines were meant since 2019 to be a living document, one subjected to review every two years to keep pace with evolving science, changes in provincial regulations and feedback from city staff and stakeholders, to better guide how natural heritage policies would be implemented in accordance with the London Plan. The extent to which those guidelines have served their purpose is worthy of examination, and I would seek out insight from those who have scrutinized those guidelines to protect our natural heritage, such as Nature London, so I could inform myself before recommending changes.

Jonathan Sher

Ward 8

---------------------  Coralia Tudor

Q1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally

significant area?”

A- A park is a green space that is set up for people to play or gather in (playgrounds, soccer fields, baseball diamonds,  splash pads, etc.). 

A ESA is an area that is determined to have environmental significance (plants, animals, waterways) and needs to be protected from development and human impacts. These include woodlands, fields, ponds, rivers and other bodies of water. These areas may have paths for hiking, or may not. 

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage

System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the

developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements

would you recommend?

A- The Guidelines are new so it's hard to say, but they do provide some clear outlines of what is permitted/mandated to be kept, and what can be touched or destroyed for development. 

I would like to see the following improvements, larger areas protected. The plan focuses heavily on the waterways, this isolates protections to a few areas, where there should be more natural areas throughout the city.  Better connections between existing woodlots maintained where possible through naturalization. The guideline focuses on wetlands, woods, valleyfield, and endangered animals and has a 30m buffer set. The buffer should be 100m or greater, and if there are destroyed areas within that distance, we should aim to fix and rehabilitate/naturalize the environment. I didn't notice any  punitive measures, there are prohibitions, mandatory studies, and denial of development approvals, but those can be challenged at the OMB, and it only relies on fines from the province or Federal Government, who are not overseeing this project. 

Q3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their

purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

A- The Guidelines serve the purpose of setting clear parameters for developers and protecting our environment. However, from my cursory glance, I feel they fall short as their consultant screening tools miss categories,  important habitats including prairies, and woodlands with temporary water (ephemeral or vernal ponds) are not on the screening tool. 

For improvements, I would like to see stronger regulations than what are currently there to include larger buffers from the water or forest, 100m minimum (currently set at 30m).  I would also make these assessments repeated multiple times a year as many plant species  and migratory species are not present year round and can appear off schedule depending on an early or late spring. The way we develop cuts the connections between natural areas for wildlife, we should place more emphasis on creating connections between natural areas. As well, the screening tool is focused on endangered wildlife, and doesn't take into account other wildlife like, skunks, racoons, deer, bears, and birds. 

Coralia Tudor

Ward 9

---------------------  Anna Hopkins

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

Parks are usually green spaces that can be found in all our neighbourhoods.  Parks usually have recreational facilities ex- splash pads, playground equipment, tennis/pickleball courts etc. Springbank Park is a gem in our City,  ESAs are natural areas that are maintained by UTRCA and the City of London.  Londoners use these areas by using trails and enjoying the natural beauty by walking/running.  Kains Woods can be found in Ward 9 and follows the river along the west side of the city.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the

developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

It is useful as long as we follow the plan.  The Environmental Management Plan assists staff when they review planning applications.  It is not intended to stop development but to facilitate development near our natural areas.  Example -A wetland can be moved out of the way for development to proceed as long as it is moved in another area of the development.  The follow up is important (no negative loss) to make sure that we are not losing wetlands in our city.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The Environmental Management Guideline guides development in our Official Plan (The London Plan).  Environmental Assessments and technical advise is still needed when planning applications come forward.  During this term of Council we have changed some of these guidelines to allow for less buffering next to natural areas to allow for greater intensification and development to meet our housing targets.  Supporting development is important but  protecting natural areas is also important and I would be open to a review of these buffers allowing for better protection of our natural areas especially as we look into the future of building our city.

Anna Hopkins

---------------------  Matt Millar

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you

see as the difference between a park and an environmentally

significant area?”

 

I'm blessed to live and work on my family farm, so I get to enjoy nature in London daily.

I see a park as a maintained space designed for public use, while an Environmentally Significant Area is land left alone on purpose because of what naturally exists there.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage

System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the

developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements

would you recommend?

I can't tell you if the Environmental Management Plan process has proven useful, and that's the real problem. A developer writes the plan, the City approves it, and the developer funds monitoring for years afterward, checked at set intervals after construction. All of that data goes to the City. None of it gets published anywhere a resident or a councillor could check whether a development actually followed through. A process nobody outside city hall bureaucracy can verify hasn't proven anything either way.

My improvement: publish EMP compliance details and outcomes, plan by plan, so council and residents can see whether the monitoring milestones were actually met, not just that a plan was filed on paper.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their

purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

I can't give you a real answer on whether the Guidelines are too strict, not strict enough, or right where they should be. That takes seeing years of outcomes: how many Environmental Impact Studies got rejected or scaled back, how many Environmentally Significant Areas came close to losing protection, how many projects were stalled or abandoned, or how monitoring actually played out.

None of that gets published in a form residents or council can review, so nobody outside city hall can make that call either.

Matt Millar

Ward 10

---------------------  Juman Al-Jumaili

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

In London, parks and environmentally sensitive areas often occupy the same space. I see a park as a place designed for people to enjoy nature and open space. People often utilize parks for walking, sports, picnics, relaxing, and other recreational activities. Environmentally sensitive areas on the other hand, are areas that are protected due to the importance of its natural features, habitats, and wildlife. Parks focus on recreation and public enjoyment. While environmentally sensitive areas focus on protecting environment and biodiversity.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

I think an Environmental Management Plan is very useful for developing the city. Developers often submit a Natural Heritage Evaluation Plan with their development applications to identify natural features and ecological significance of an area. The Environmental Management Plan outlines how to protect those environmental features. As the city continues to grow it is important to acknowledge, respect, and strengthen our approach to protecting our natural environment. I think the Environmental Management Plan is very useful and an important tool in protecting out environment. Going forward, I would like to see details from the plan more readily available to the public. I think we could do a better job as a city informing residents on developments in their neighborhood and how it affects the natural environment. I think this will facilitate a greater community dynamic and allow residents a greater opportunity to protect, advocate, and participate in the development of their neighborhoods.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

I think the Environmental Management Guidelines have served its purpose by providing guidance on how development should protect natural areas and reduce environmental impacts. They help developers and the city identify environmentally important features and determine appropriate ways to manage them. However, I think the guidelines could be improved from a language standpoint. Documents such as the Environmental Management Guidelines are technical documents and utilize language that is specific to its area of expertise. As a result, people that are unfamiliar with it often experience difficulties in interpreting and understanding the information within the document. I think refining the language to make it easier for the public and developers to understand will greatly benefit its ability to be effective.

Juman Al-Jumaili

---------------------  Lois Ward

Question 1

In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area (ESA)?

I value both and see them as serving different purposes. Parks are public spaces designed for recreation, gathering and everyday access to the outdoors. Environmentally Significant Areas are natural systems first: places we protect because of their ecological value, biodiversity, habitat and role in the wider natural heritage system. We should be able to enjoy ESAs, but that enjoyment has to be compatible with protecting the ecosystems that make them significant in the first place.

Question 2

For new developments adjacent to the City's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

The process is useful in principle because development beside natural heritage areas needs clear ecological limits, buffers, restoration
requirements and monitoring. My concern is that the process has been inconsistent in producing safeguarding of ESAs - for example the abutment of high rise developments immediately to the edge of Westminster Ponds/Pond MIlls ESA, the encroachment on the Coves ESA and Attawandaron Park, and the fine for a developer who destroyed habitat and the resulting need to remediate habitat for spiny softshelled turtles. I would want the City to make expectations clear early, use independent ecological evidence, make monitoring and follow-up transparent, and ensure that conditions attached to approvals are actually enforced.

Question 3

Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Clear environmental guidelines are important because developers, residents and City staff should all know what evidence is required and what standards apply. It was necessary to update the guidelines in 2025 and I expect that the consultation process drew upon experts to create the changes. Although I am not conversant with the document, I support guidelines that protect natural heritage while making the planning process predictable. I would like to see strong public transparency, clear buffer and restoration expectations, ongoing monitoring after approvals, and regular review of the guidelines as climate risks and ecological knowledge change.


Lois Ward

Ward 11

---------------------  Skylar Franke

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

In my opinion, a park is primarily a recreational space, featuring playgrounds, cut grass, sports fields, and courts for basketball, pickleball or tennis. It prioritizes activated recreation spaces while also allowing for naturalized areas to enhance the user experience.

I see ESAs as natural spaces and the natural complement to parks, with an ecology first priority while allowing for passive recreation such as walking trails where appropriate. An ecological first approach serves a higher environmental benefit, and must be preserved in these spaces. These lands balance preservation while allowing humans to enjoy them passively within London’s urban context; nature protected and enjoyed by those who love it.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

Environmental Management Plans lay out, in greater detail, the recommendations established during the initial Environmental Impact Study stage of development. In my experience, these requirements have only been useful when the specific metrics outlined in the EMP are directed to binding conditions in Development Agreements in Site Plan or as conditions of subdivision approval. 

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

I appreciate that the EMG’s at least have minimum standards (like 30m buffer from significant environmental features), and I think were used to successfully defeat some planning applications like the one at 1494 Commissioners Rd. W. near Warbler Woods which would have been 10 luxury units, but it would have encroached on the buffer setbacks.

I think without EMGs, we would see a lot more encroachment and destruction; however, policies and plans are only as good as those who oversee them, and if Council’s whims decide to chart a new course, there is little a plan can do to withstand political pressure.

Over the course of the term the EMG requirements seemed to become more fluid based on political pressure from LDI, particularly related to buffer requirements. I would be interested to know if there is potential to add minimum buffer requirements into The London Plan and be able to withstand political pressure. I suppose an improvement would be having members of Council who valued the environment equal or more than development. Perhaps training the new Council on EMG’s and their value, maybe if they understand the role of EMG’s, EIS and EMP’s they might be more willing to support them at Council and push back against developers. And having a better balance on the Planning and Environment Committee of different perspectives - so I would work to try and make sure the composition of PEC was more balanced.

Thank you for the interesting questions

Skylar Franke

Ward 12

--------------------- Elizabeth Peloza

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

I see parks as an area curated for specific recreation purposes-potentially including infrastructure like benches and playgrounds, perhaps a splash pad. Whereas an ESA is an environmentally protected area where conservation is the priority and public access might be limited to passive enjoyment of designated areas through trails and lookouts.

I find enjoyment in both.

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

I have found the Environmental Management Plan to be a useful tool. Council has used it for setback discussions including a discussion of requiring fencing in one application due to the close proximity of a residential re-development to a natural heritage area. While in another application, asking developers to allow access for scholars to areas of their property to monitor a Wood Poppy population was observed during the previously  completed Ecological Impact Study.

I would appreciate more provincial planning legislation surrounding the protection of endangered wildlife, species at risk, natural heritage areas, environmentally significant areas.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The Environmental Management Guidelines are serving their purpose. The guidelines need to continue being updated as provincial legislation changes ensuring then those updates need to be integrated into the London Plan.

Ward 13

---------------------  Andrew Crook

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

I see them as serving related but different purposes. A park is primarily a shared civic space. It should invite people in to walk, play, gather, exercise and spend time outdoors.

An environmentally significant area is something we are entering as guests. Its ecological function comes first. The trails allow us to experience it, but our enjoyment should not come at the expense of the habitat we are there to appreciate.

London needs both.

Good parks help people build a relationship with the outdoors. Healthy ESAs preserve the natural systems, wildlife and biodiversity that make London worthy of the name Forest City.

2. For new developments adjacent to the City's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

I support the principle. Development beside sensitive natural areas should account for drainage, habitat, buffers, construction impacts and the long-term health of the surrounding ecosystem. I would be hesitant, however, to claim the process is working perfectly without examining its actual outcomes.

My broader concern with municipal approvals is that good objectives can become buried beneath complicated processes. Requirements should be clear at the beginning, based on evidence, applied consistently and lead to timely decisions.

I would want to know: Are the natural features actually being protected? Are developers receiving predictable requirements early enough to design around them? How often are studies revised or duplicated? How long does the process take, and are monitoring commitments followed after construction?

Protecting nature and improving the approval process should not be competing goals. A good system should do both.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The City's Environmental Management Guidelines were substantially updated in 2025, so I think it is important to give the current framework a fair opportunity to work while measuring whether it actually achieves its intended purpose.

The goal should be a process that is scientifically sound, consistent and understandable to everyone involved.

I would support regular public reporting on outcomes: what natural features were protected, what mitigation or restoration occurred, whether promised monitoring was completed, how long environmental reviews took and where unnecessary duplication or uncertainty occurred.

I would also want feedback from environmental groups, residents, landowners, developers and the professionals who actually navigate the process.

My governing approach is simple: establish clear objectives, listen to the people affected, measure the results honestly and change course when reality demands it.

London's natural heritage is an asset we inherit, enjoy and eventually pass on. Good stewardship means protecting it while making sure the rules designed to do so actually work.

I hope that clarifies my position and I'd be happy to discuss further if needed.

Andrew Crook

---------------------  Schelley Bisson

• 1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?
  
  A park is where I take a walk, meet neighbours, and let kids play — lawns, paths, benches, programming. An environmentally significant area is different: it is habitat and natural function first. Trails can still welcome people, but the point is protection, not picnic tables and ball diamonds. Downtown, I want both: usable parks that feel safe and maintained, and ESAs that stay intact so the river valleys and woodlots keep doing their job. Mixing those goals without clear rules is how we end up with neither. Enjoy nature where it is designed for people; protect nature where the science says leave it alone.
  
  2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?
  
  On paper, yes — an EMP forces a developer to show how they will avoid, mitigate, and monitor impacts next to the Natural Heritage System. In practice, usefulness depends on whether council and staff enforce it after approval, not only at the hearing. Plans that sit in a binder while grading and tree loss go sideways are not useful. I would push for clearer triggers, public plain-language summaries, independent peer review where stakes are high, and measurable follow-up: inspections, reporting, and consequences when conditions are missed. Process only works if the result on the ground matches what was promised.
  
  3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?
  
  They have helped set a common baseline so staff, applicants, and the public are not inventing rules project by project. That purpose still matters. Where they fall short is when they feel outdated, hard for residents to follow, or weak on monitoring after the shovel hits the ground. I would recommend a scheduled review with Nature London and other stewardship groups at the table, clearer language on what "success" looks like on site, stronger expectations for cumulative impacts along corridors like the Thames, and better public reporting when guidelines are waived or varied. Guidelines should guide real decisions — not just fill an appendix.

Schelley Bisson

---------------------  David Ferreira

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

I see the main difference as one of priority. A park is generally designed around people being able to gather, play, exercise and enjoy green space. An environmentally significant area is protected because the natural feature and its ecological functions have particular significance, which means protection of that ecosystem has to come first and public access has to be managed around what the area can sustain.

That does not mean parks are somehow separate from nature. Our parks contain mature trees, wildlife habitat, waterways and important connections within the broader natural system, and those should also be protected. At the same time, an ESA cannot simply be treated like another recreational park. Trails and public access are important because allowing people to experience nature helps build an appreciation for protecting it, but that access should not undermine the very ecological features that made the area significant in the first place.

As our city continues to grow, I think both are important. We need parks that connect people with nature and we need environmentally significant areas where protecting and strengthening the ecosystem is the overriding consideration.

2. For new developments adjacent to the City's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

Yes. I believe the environmental management plan and environmental impact study process is important because development adjacent to the natural heritage system needs to demonstrate how impacts will be avoided, mitigated and monitored rather than simply dealing with damage after it occurs.

The part I believe deserves greater attention is what happens after the plans are approved. London already requires monitoring during construction and can require post-construction monitoring of ecological buffers, natural features, plantings, groundwater and other ecological functions. That is important, but the value of those requirements depends on whether the City has the capacity to follow up, identify when commitments are not being met and require corrective action.

I would like to see stronger and more transparent follow-through on those commitments, including clear responsibility for corrective work, sufficient securities or other accountability mechanisms where appropriate, and continued post-development monitoring where impacts are not known immediately. I also believe Council needs to maintain stable funding for that work. Environmental protection cannot simply be a condition placed on a drawing when a development is approved; we need to know whether the measures we required actually worked once that development is built.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Yes. The environmental management guidelines serve an important purpose because they take the environmental policies in our OP and turn them into technical requirements for evaluating natural features, determining development limits and buffers, assessing impacts, requiring mitigation or compensation, and monitoring what happens afterward. Council also followed through on reviewing the guidelines adopted in 2021, with updated guidelines adopted in 2025.

I do think the 2025 review demonstrated why these guidelines require continued scrutiny. There was significant discussion between environmental organizations, the development industry and the City over how strong some of these requirements should be. One example was the minimum buffer applied to larger significant woodlands, which moved from 30 metres under the former guidelines to 20 metres in 2025 guidelines. Staff supported the revised minimum based on the technical work undertaken through the review, while environmental advocates raised concerns about whether reducing buffers could increase impacts on woodlands.

For me, that makes monitoring even more important. When Council makes a policy decision like that, we should use actual post-development evidence to determine whether the standard is doing what we intended it to do. If monitoring shows increased encroachment, loss of ecological function or other impacts, we should be prepared to strengthen the guidelines again rather than simply waiting for the next scheduled review.

I would also like to see greater public reporting on outcomes, whether required buffers and mitigation measures are being maintained, whether ecological compensation is actually succeeding, where problems are occurring, and what we are learning from post-development monitoring. The purpose should not simply be to have strong environmental guidelines on paper. The measure of success is whether the natural features and ecological functions those guidelines were intended to protect are still there and functioning as our city grows.

David Ferreira

Ward 14

---------------------  Sarah Lehman

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

I think there is an important distinction between a park and an Environmentally Significant Area, even though both are valuable parts of London's natural landscape. Parks are primarily places for people. They provide opportunities for recreation, sports, walking, gathering and enjoying the outdoors. They are an important part of building healthy and connected neighbourhoods.ESA’s are primarily places we have a responsibility to protect because of their ecological value. They can contain important forests, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural features that support biodiversity and the health of our broader ecosystem. Not to say people can’t enjoy ESAs, but enjoying them also means understanding that sometimes the best way to enjoy a natural area is to leave parts of it alone. As London continues to grow, I want us to protect the natural heritage that makes our city special. We need to make sure that recreation and development don't unintentionally degrade the very ecosystems that people come to enjoy. 

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

I believe Environmental Management Plans are a useful and necessary tool, but their effectiveness ultimately depends on how well they are implemented, monitored and enforced.

The purpose shouldn't simply be to produce another report as part of the development application. The plan needs to translate into clear requirements on the ground. Protecting natural features during construction, establishing appropriate buffers, managing stormwater and erosion, protecting wildlife and vegetation, and monitoring impacts after construction are all important elements.

London's current guidelines recognize the importance of monitoring before, during and after construction, including using monitoring to determine whether additional mitigation or adaptive management is needed.

I would like to see three areas strengthened:

1. Better monitoring and follow-through. If an environmental management plan identifies a risk, we need to make sure there is a mechanism to verify that the recommended measures actually happened and worked.
2. Clear accountability. Developers should understand their environmental responsibilities before construction begins, with clear consequences when agreed-upon measures aren't followed.
3. Long-term thinking. We need to consider the cumulative impact of development on natural areas, rather than looking at each development in isolation.

I also believe the people who know these natural areas best, like environmental organizations, local experts, and community members, should have meaningful opportunities to contribute to the process.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

I think the Environmental Management Guidelines have provided an important framework for making decisions about London's Natural Heritage System, but guidelines are only as effective as their implementation.

The City updated the guidelines in 2025 to provide current standards and procedures for identifying and evaluating natural heritage features, assessing impacts and establishing buffers. I would focus on making sure the guidelines continue to be science-based, transparent and consistently applied.

I would also like to see stronger emphasis on:

• Monitoring and measurable outcomes, so we can determine whether environmental protections are actually working.
• Cumulative impacts, rather than considering individual developments one at a time.
• Protection of connected natural areas, recognizing that forests, wetlands, waterways and wildlife habitat function as systems rather than isolated pieces of land.
• Clear accountability for mitigation and restoration commitments made during the development process.

I think London has an opportunity to demonstrate that being the Forest City means more than having a lot of trees. It means actively protecting the natural systems that make our city healthier, more resilient and more livable.

Sarah Lehman 

Mayor

---------------------  John R. Feher

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

A park is more for enjoyment and the environmentally significant areas protect natural species and wild life. They are more like a conservation area.


2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

I don’t believe there is enough restrictions to protect our natural environment with new development. Each new development should set aside an area for natural conservation.


3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Not nearly enough but without more information it is difficult to give an informed answer.

John R. Feher

---------------------  Kirsten Krose

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?

A park is primarily a public space designed for recreation, gathering and everyday use. An Environmentally Significant Area has a different purpose: protecting sensitive ecosystems, wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

Both are important, but they should be managed differently. Parks should be accessible and well maintained, while ESAs need stronger protection and carefully managed public access so that enjoyment does not come at the expense of conservation.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city’s Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

The process is useful because development near sensitive natural areas needs clear environmental safeguards.

My focus would be on making the process more transparent and accountable: clear standards at the beginning, independent review where appropriate, measurable conditions for approval, and follow-up after development to ensure commitments are actually being met.

Good policy is not just about having a plan on paper; it is about making sure it works in practice.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The guidelines provide an important framework, but they should be reviewed regularly to make sure they reflect current science, changing development pressures and London’s long-term growth.

I would support clearer and more measurable standards, stronger monitoring, better public transparency, and regular review of whether the guidelines are achieving the environmental outcomes they were intended to deliver.

Kirsten Krose

---------------------  Tariq Khan

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

From public lenses both are alike but technically Park is public Oriented place providing space for recreation, sports, walking, gathering, play and community activities.

An Environmentally Significant Area (ESA)  is primarily ecosystem-oriented.  Its first responsibility is to protect biodiversity, wildlife habitat, forests, wetlands, valley lands and other ecological functions, while allowing people to experience nature in ways that do not damage it.

Forest City has both, we  enjoy our parks as community spaces, but I see our ESAs as something we hold in trust for future generations. Public access is important, but in an ESA ecological protection must come first. Trails and public enjoyment should therefore be managed according to the environmental sensitivity of each area.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

Once again let me touch the aspect which is almost hidden from the public eyes and thats our Developer's-friendly-all-out-Governance-policy city is following at the cost of character of London.

London's real canopy cover is all times low despite all claims. It may be directly attributed to developer's friendly policies.

There is contradiction within City's tow similar actions.  When City plans or repair a road or a bridge, City follows all possible guidelines but when it comes to Planning application, the general practice is, Applicant is supposed to add all those studies along with the package.  Now do you think that a consultant hired by a developer will write something against the developer?  

It should be City's responsibility to look at the application from City's  policy's lenses and decide what to do with the development application rather just ticking the check marks and forward that application for approval to the council.

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

The Environmental Management Guidelines serve an important purpose because they establish consistent standards and procedures for identifying natural heritage features, conducting environmental studies, determining buffers and assessing the impacts of development. London updated these Guidelines in 2025.

Unfortunately these revision are developer's oriented rather saving interests of Forest City.

A through revision is needed.

Tariq Khan

---------------------  Josh Morgan

1.      In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you
see as the difference between a park and an environmentally
significant area?”

Environmentally significant areas need to have limited public access to ensure protection of sensitive species and animal life. This also includes restrictions on bicycles (with a couple of exceptions). Management of these areas requires a level of expertise to monitor and maintain, including the management of invasive species .

2.      For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage
System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the
developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements
would you recommend?

Yes it has. I wouldn’t suggest specific improvement myself as my professional expertise is limited in the area.  I would leave those to experts and staff engaging together to make recommendations for updates.

3.      Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their
purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Yes they have. Given their more technical nature, it is most appropriate for experts and staff engaging together to make recommendations for updates/improvements. I think we also would want to consider regular review and updates to the Invasive Plant Management Strategy as a related strategy.

Josh Morgan

---------------------  Bronagh Morgan

1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

My enjoyment of nature (and I definitely do) should not come at the expense of the species that thrive in ESAs. A park is for all of us to share. Limiting access to ESAs is reasonable in the interests of the other species there.

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

I believe we as a City have at times set aside what are reasonable limitations on development in favour of development for its own sake. There is a ton of room for London to build, renovate, and re-build without placing ESAs and other spaces in need of protection at risk. See my response to 3...

3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

Guidelines that we do not enforce are, like declarations and plans and so many other municipal enactments, are a clear waste of vital resources and leave people wondering why they even bother to engage with politicians and government at all. The basis of my platform is system reform. Write simply to effect the intended solutions. Consider honestly what works and what does not, remove silos and cut administration, and move forward boldly. We have more than enough money and expertise to build the affordable homes we need, create walkable, livable neighbourhoods and a well-connected City, AND respect nature, if we take a little time to evaluate and restructure City operations to better achieve our shared goals. It might seem oversimplistic, but the solution truly is in the paperwork.

No email contact was found on the City’s Candidate listing for the following:

Bonnie Baleck

Tony Biviano

Ubaid Bhatti

Denise Brown

Jari Spence