B.C. Bill to Limit Municipal Development Reviews Draws Widespread Safety Concerns

A proposed piece of legislation in British Columbia aimed at accelerating housing approvals is drawing sharp criticism from professional organizations, municipal leaders and safety groups who warn the changes could weaken oversight of development projects.

The bill, known as the Professional Reliance Act, was introduced by George Anderson as a private member’s bill.

Anderson says the proposal is intended to reduce delays in the development approval process by limiting what he describes as duplicate technical reviews conducted by municipalities.

However, more than a dozen professional associations — including engineers, architects and firefighters — have raised concerns that the legislation could undermine safeguards designed to protect public safety.

How the bill would work

Under the proposal, municipalities would be required to accept technical reports certified by professionals regulated under the Professional Governance Act.

Those professionals include engineers, architects and geoscientists.

Local governments would only be able to reject submissions if the documentation is incomplete or if a formal complaint has been filed against the professional responsible.

The bill would also prevent municipalities from conducting their own peer reviews of technical submissions prepared by those professionals.

Currently, cities and regional districts often verify reports submitted by developers to ensure compliance with the B.C. Building Code, environmental regulations and other planning requirements.

Safety concerns raised

Several organizations argue that removing those checks could allow mistakes to slip through the approval process.

The BC Professional Fire Fighters Association said the proposed legislation could create risks if technical designs for building safety systems are not independently reviewed.

“This bill has the potential to jeopardize public safety,” the association said in its submission.

Municipal officials have also pointed to examples where city reviews caught major design issues before construction began.

In one case cited by the District of Sechelt, a proposed six-storey apartment building lacked accessible ramps or elevators. Another project included a parkade design without proper ventilation systems to remove vehicle exhaust and carbon monoxide.

Opposition from local governments

Municipalities across the province have been strongly critical of the proposal.

Officials in the Cariboo Regional District said delays in development approvals are often caused by incomplete or flawed applications from developers rather than excessive review.

“The fastest way to accelerate development approvals is simple: submit a complete, code-compliant application,” the district wrote in its submission.

The City of Duncan also rejected the bill’s premise, arguing it incorrectly assumes that technical submissions from professionals are always accurate.

“This is patently false,” the city said.

Data from the B.C. Building Code Appeal Board indicates that when disputes arose between municipal building officials and registered professionals over code compliance, the professional’s interpretation was incorrect about 49 per cent of the time.

Support from development industry

Despite the criticism, the proposal has received support from several pro-housing and development groups.

The Urban Development Institute and the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade say the bill could reduce approval timelines that often delay housing projects and increase costs.

One developer told lawmakers that repeated technical questions from municipal planners delayed a project and cost an additional $250,000.

What the bill’s sponsor says

Anderson argues the legislation would not change zoning rules or determine what can be built in a municipality.

Instead, he said it simply recognizes the expertise of regulated professionals and reduces duplication in the review process.

“The bill aims to strike a balance,” Anderson said.

“It recognizes the expertise of regulated professionals, maintains municipal planning authority and reduces unnecessary duplication.”

What happens next

The legislation narrowly survived an early review stage after a 4–3 committee vote allowed it to continue.

Some lawmakers have suggested the bill may need major revisions, while others believe further consultation with experts could improve it.

The committee plans to invite additional stakeholders to provide input before reporting back to the provincial legislature by May 6.

Members of the legislature will eventually vote again on whether the bill should proceed.