Wall property decision wrong on three counts

Good agricultural land should not be used for housing, and this proposal violates regional growth strategy.

Editor: On behalf of the Surrey/Langley/White Rock chapter of the Council of Canadians, I wish to express dismay over Langley Township council granting final approval of the Wall property development proposal.

We are dismayed for three main reasons:

First, the Wall property is agricultural land, a resource in short supply in our region and in our province. Locally produced food produces less atmospheric carbon due to reduced transportation.

Second, this proposed 13.5 acre subdivision is a major violation of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy, previously agreed to by Township council. The growth strategy attempted to create firm urban boundaries, limiting urban sprawl and reducing commuter-fed pollution and atmospheric carbon. The “firm” boundary in this case was at 216 Street, one mile to the west.

Third, the Agricultural Land Commission gave only conditional approval to this removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Downstream flood mitigation as a result of increased urban run-off has not yet been addressed.

We do, however, wish to commend the three councillors who voted against this wrong-headed development. Councillor David Davis, Councillor Kim Richter and Councillor Michelle Sparrow each deserve our thanks.

Peter Thomson,


Langley Times