Banff’s development appeal board has thrown out an argument that Banff National Park’s management plan imposes a mandatory cap of 8,000 people on the tourist town’s permanent population.
In appealing redevelopment of the Homestead Inn, Peter Poole of Arctos & Bird argued the management plan directly ties the issue of commercial development to the matter of population growth pressures and mandates all decisions of Parks Canada and the Town of Banff proactively take into account the policy objective of limiting the Town’s permanent population to 8,000.
On the other hand, the Town of Banff and the developers, Fuji, insist the 8,000 figure is not a fixed number, and that Parks Canada’s intent is not to let the permanent population of the town get out of hand in the context of its setting within a national park.
In a 32-page decision, the quasi-judicial board found that while Parks Canada does have in mind some maximum permanent population, nowhere does the plan, Canada National Parks Act or its regulations, specifically fix it at 8,000.
“Where the intent of the plan is to be prescriptive, that prescription is clearly stated as it is in relation to the commercial development limit, the fixing of the Town boundaries and the eligible residency requirements,” according to the May 11 decision signed by DAB chairwoman Barbara McNeil.
“If and when the federal crown seeks to impose hard limits on the permanent population of the Town, the board expects this intention will be reflected in amendments to the management plan.”
The arguments over Banff’s population cap centred on what appear to be contradictory statements in the management plan.
One statement ties the cap to commercial development, and specifically states the town’s permanent population is “intended” not to exceed 8,000.
Another says it anticipated the permanent population, based on federal census numbers, “will not” exceed 8,000. A second clause in this statement says all decisions of Parks Canada and the Town, including business licensing, shall proactively take into account this policy objective.
“The language here is particularly vexing because the reference to this policy objective must necessarily refer to the first clause in the phrase,” according to the DAB.
“But that clause, on its face and standing alone, references an anticipation as opposed to a fixed policy objective.”
Poole, who said he’s disappointed with DAB’s decision, is seeking legal advice on potential next steps. He has until June 9 to file an appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal if he wishes to take the matter any further.
He had argued that proactive management would see the Town keeping an eye on not only incremental changes to the population anticipated from individual, proposed developments, but on the changes expected from all factors on a cumulative basis.
Poole said he strongly believes Banff’s population limit under the management plan is vital for the town and is part of the growth management framework to protect the surrounding national park.
“When we make decisions one by one you do not see the cumulative effect unless we step back and add up the impact of each project that has happened and the impact of any projects that are in the pipeline,” said Poole.
“In the case of the Town of Banff, we need to understand cumulative impact on the population, as well as Parks Canada decisions to allow for expansion outside the Town of Banff that create pressures on the town.”
The Town has indicated proposed redevelopment of the Homestead Inn on Lynx Street, to replace the aging 28-room hotel with a new 71-room hotel and two apartment units, may increase the population as few as nine to 18 people.
All along, the Town has stated effects of development proposals on the population are taken into account, and in this case, Parks Canada confirmed it found no conflicts between the proposed developments and the management plan and Act.
Randall McKay, the Town of Banff’s director of planning and development, believes the DAB decision puts the debate on the population cap to rest.
He said it confirms the Town’s understanding of the legislative framework for planning and development under the National Parks Act, Town of Banff Incorporation and park management plan.
“It verifies and confirms our understanding of working with the legislated commercial growth cap,” he said. “We’re doing as much as we possibly can to ensure we are managing growth within the legislated cap, which we honour and respect.”
Parks Canada – which has ultimate authority on all land use and planning matters within the Town of Banff and holds a seat on DAB – won’t comment on this significant decision.
“Parks Canada will not comment on the decision of an independent municipal body,” reads a statement from Parks Canada.
DAB officials say they had to look at the particular case before it and decide that case on its merits and in light of the various plans, agreements and statutory provisions that bind or otherwise influence the decision making process.
“This board is in no position to develop its own policy regimen in regard to the issue of the Town’s permanent population for implementation by the Town and Parks Canada,” according to the decision.
“Whether the Town should adopt the ‘cumulative effects’ strategy urged by A&B or should continue as it has in the past is a matter for the Town and Parks Canada, and not this board, to consider.”
The 2016 federal census puts Banff’s permanent population at 7,851.
