Date: July 31, 2025

Farm Worker Housing

Executive Summary:

This Discussion Paper examines the current policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) regarding farm worker housing, with the goal of informing the 10-year NEP Review. It identifies policy gaps, implementation challenges, and opportunities for alignment with updated provincial planning frameworks, particularly the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS).

Key considerations include policy ambiguity, permanent vs. temporary housing options, geographic variations, misalignment with other provincial policy and overlap with Additional Residential Units (ARUs). The paper outlines possible options including clarifying definitions, reassessing the temporary housing requirement, evaluating the impacts of more permissive policies, and developing technical guidance while protecting the Escarpment environment.

The paper highlights the need for a balanced approach that supports agricultural viability while protecting the Escarpment environment. It recommends further exploration of policy changes to ensure the NEP remains responsive to agricultural needs and aligned with broader provincial planning objectives.

1.0 Preamble

This Discussion Paper is one in a series of documents developed to inform the NEC about policies of the 2017 NEP where staff have identified gaps or challenges or significant changes to the provincial land use planning framework have taken place in recent years. The intent is to provide awareness for the Commission about the issues and potential options which the Commission may then use in the development of a list of recommended topics to be considered by the Minister of Natural Resources for inclusion in the 10-year NEP Review.

2.0 Definitions

The following is a select list of key terms defined in the NEP that are relevant to this discussion paper.

Accessory: Naturally and normally incidental, subordinate and exclusively devoted to the principal use located on the same lot.

Dwelling unit: One or more habitable rooms with a private entrance and designed for the use of one household in which sanitary and kitchen facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such household.

Escarpment environment: The physical and natural heritage features, cultural heritage resources, and scenic resources associated with the Escarpment landscape.

3.0 Introduction

Housing for farm workers is an important component of a sustainable and economically viable agricultural sector. Ensuring that farm workers have access to safe, affordable, and adequate housing supports the productivity and stability of farms.

The need for farm worker housing can vary geographically and for each individual farm, where some farms may need additional labour but not to the extent that on-farm housing is required. Other agricultural operations may need housing based on the high degree of labour required either seasonally or annually.

The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to consider the current NEP policies that relate to the development of farm worker housing within the NEP area to inform Commission recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources in support of the 10-year NEP Review.

While housing standards, living conditions, and health and safety are a critical and important component of ensuring adequate housing is available for farm labour, these aspects of housing are the mandate of other federal, provincial, and municipal agencies, such as public health units and municipal building departments. They are also regulated by employment standards legislation. While these considerations are beyond the scope of this Discussion Paper, these standards may influence the design of farm worker housing and associated Development Permit applications.

Background

In Ontario, land use planning considerations for farm worker housing are shaped by both provincial planning policies and local official plans. The PPS sets the overall framework for Ontario and encourages municipalities to plan for a range of housing options, which includes supporting the development of a mix of housing options for farm workers while also conforming to guidance for protecting rural lands and agriculture. Building on provincial policy, the NEP provides specific policies related to dwelling units that are accessory to agriculture. The NEP is to be read in conjunction with the PPS but “shall take precedence over the policies of the PPS to the extent of any conflict.”

NEP Policies for Farm Worker Housing

Currently the NEP allows for housing for farm workers under two separate permitted uses:

• As an “Agricultural use” (per definition includes “accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment”) which is consistent with the previous PPS (2014) definition. Or;
• As a mobile or portable dwelling unit(s) accessory to agriculture

Part 2.8.5 of the NEP provides the following development criteria for Dwelling Units Accessory to Agricultural Uses

A temporary dwelling unit(s) for farm labour may be permitted on the same property as the principal farm house, subject to the following criteria:

a) additional farm labour is required on a full-time or seasonal basis;

b) the dwelling unit(s) shall be mobile or portable, without a basement; or the dwelling unit(s) may be permitted within an existing farm building or structure on a temporary basis, where justified (e.g., barn);

c) the dwelling unit(s) should be located within the existing farm building cluster, and the existing farm lane access is to be used where possible; and

d) the dwelling unit(s) shall be temporary and shall be removed within a period set out in the Development Permit when the dwelling unit is no longer required.

While stakeholder feedback during the 2015 NEP review highlighted the challenges of being limited to mobile or portable dwelling units, no policy changes were recommended by NEC or the Ministry of Natural Resources as part of the review.

NEC staff continue to receive inquiries and applications for farm worker housing, both permanent and temporary. Some applicants have expressed a preference for more permanent farm labour housing and in some cases on lots adjacent to the principal farm residence or cluster. NEC staff cannot recommend approval of applications that do not meet the NEP policies.

In addition, NEC staff have identified challenges related to Part 2.8.5 c) where farm worker housing can be temporarily permitted in an existing building or structure. Since the structure must already exist, if a farmer wishes to build a new barn and include temporary farm worker housing, the barn must be built first, which is likely to be exempt under Regulation 828, and then after construction, apply for a Development Permit for renovations to include housing. This can be inefficient and costly for applicants. Other agencies requirements for safe and adequate housing may not make temporary housing of this nature feasible, and it is also difficult for NEC to make determinations around what is required to remove housing after a certain period. NEC generally applies a timeframe of three (3) to five (5) years for temporary farm housing, but this is not legislated nor in policy at this time.

In addition to these challenges, ensuring that Development Permits are renewed when required is both an operational and compliance issue for NEC. It has been noted in previous reviews of Development Permits for farm worker housing that approximately one-third were extended by way of a new application. Which either indicates the use was no longer required or illustrates a compliance issue.

PPS Policies Related to Farm Worker Housing

The PPS does not provide specific direction for farm worker housing but rather includes this use in the definition of Agricultural uses:

Agricultural uses: means the growing of crops, including nursery, biomass, and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures, including, but not limited to livestock facilities, manure storages, value-retaining facilities, and housing for farm workers, when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment.

This definition was amended from the 2014 PPS definition which included “accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment.”

The PPS does not specify that housing for farm workers must be temporary or mobile. Within the NEP area, the current NEP policies would prevail.

It is also important to note that Section 4.3.2.6 of the PPS states “For greater certainty, the two additional residential units that are permitted on a lot in a prime agricultural area in accordance with policy 4.3.2.5 are in addition to farm worker housing permitted as an agricultural use.”

Otherwise, development in rural lands and rural areas, including prime agricultural areas (PAAs), are subject to the relevant policies in Section 2 of the PPS. Municipalities may have more specific policies in their official plans and zoning bylaws regarding farm worker housing that are either more or less permissive.

For comparison, both the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan include farm worker housing as agricultural uses and the relevant policies would apply.

5.0 Discussion

There are several important factors to consider regarding on farm worker housing and potential amendments to the NEP as part of the 10-year review.

Definition and Type of Use

There is no definition in the NEP as to what may be considered farm labour, which creates flexibility in providing housing options but can also make it difficult to apply relevant policy. For example, farm workers may be seasonal or more permanent employees. The number of employees required, and the type or duration of that labour is also variable. As noted above, the definition of agricultural uses in the NEP includes full time farm labour. It is unclear if it was intended that different NEP policies would apply to different types of farm labour requirements.

Regarding farm worker housing as a use, the NEP consideration of dwelling units accessory to agriculture is not consistent with other provincial plans and the PPS. There may be merit in this approach, however, it may also be duplicative if farm worker housing is treated as two different uses. This also may also create challenges when considering permitted uses as well as determining if and how the policies of part 2.8.5 apply. Currently, dwelling units accessory to agriculture are only permitted in Escarpment Protection Areas and Escarpment Rural Areas (ERA). However, agricultural uses are treated as existing uses in Escarpment Natural Areas, and according to the current agricultural use definition in the NEP, farm worker housing could be permittable. It is not expected this was the intent. and that the policies in 2.8.5 are to provide guidance for farm worker housing. Therefore, further considering the definitions and the use is important in determining what changes, if any, are recommended during the 10 -year NEP Review.

Temporary vs. Permanent Structures

Another key consideration is the current NEP requirement for farm worker housing to be temporary and in some cases mobile or portable. The farm worker housing needs are variable across the NEP area, for example, some farms may need bunkhouses or dormitory style housing, and others may use mobile or prefabricated homes. In some cases, old barns or buildings may be converted, temporarily, into apartments or single units. Policies need to take flexibility into consideration while ensuring the purpose and objectives of the NEP are met and farm worker housing is compatible with the Escarpment environment.

In some areas there may be benefits to more permanent types of farm worker housing, such as economics of a longer-term investment and more stability or predictability of available accommodations. In some situations, it could be demonstrated that permanent structures for farm worker housing are justified. For example, in speciality crop areas in the south of the NEP area, it may be possible that one could demonstrate the need for farm worker housing, even permanent structures, for this purpose. Whereas in other areas of the NEP, such as the north portion in Bruce County, the type, location, and extent of agricultural practices may not have the same demonstrated requirements for farm workers and associated housing needs. It is important to determine what temporary, portable or mobile mean in the context of housing and what tests are necessary to demonstrate conformity with the policies. When considering if permanent structures should be allowed, it is important to recall that intensification in the rural lands of the NEP area is a concern and development should be directed to planned settlement areas. Also, agricultural uses can change over time and conflicts, or compliance issues, can arise if farm worker housing is converted to other uses in the future.

Current NEP policies require that dwelling units accessory to agricultural uses are located on the same property as the principal farmhouse, which is intended to ensure that buildings are clustered and that any required servicing needs are addressed in a consolidated way. However, there may be situations where the existing lot cannot accommodate additional structures or where housing that is closer to, or integrated with, the agricultural operation is reasonable, for example, in areas with greenhouses or speciality crop lands that may not have a principal residence.

Additional Residential Units vs Farm Worker Housing

To address housing shortages, changes were made to regulations under the Planning Act to reduce barriers the development of Additional Residential Units (ARUs) in settlement areas throughout the province. The PPS does not include policy that speaks to ARUs in rural areas but does have policies that direct how ARUs can be developed in PAAs (more information on this topic is outlined in Section 4.0 of the Discussion Paper titled “Additional Residential Units on Agricultural Properties”). The intent of recent changes was to enable the creation of housing associated with an agricultural use but does not limit ARUs in PAAs to farm worker housing, individuals working in agricultural or agribusiness, or family members working on the farm. Currently the NEP is permissive of one ARU/secondary dwelling unit that is within or attached to the principal dwelling in ERAs. The NEP does not have specific policies that guide the development of ARUs in PAAs.

Recommendations regarding farm worker housing policies should consider options for dwelling units and permitted uses, current and recommended. More permissive policies related to both ARU and farm worker housing could result in greater intensification on agricultural lands, which may not be aligned with the overall purpose and objectives of the NEP. Careful consideration should be given to the nuances of these two uses and the need for one or the other or both. A key difference between ARUs and farm worker housing, in both PPS and NEP, is that eligibility for development of farm worker housing requires a demonstration of need.

Provincial Guidance

The “Guidelines for Permitted Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas” (OMAFA 2016) provides direction to support the implementation of related PPS policies. The Guidelines note that a best practice for farm worker housing is to consider alternatives to building new, separate, permanent dwellings for farm help because farm labour needs change over time. The Guidelines also note that the severance of land with housing for farm labour is not permitted as land division fragments the agricultural land base and can thereby affect the future viability of agriculture over the long term. The guidelines have yet to be updated to align with the PPS 2024 and do not supersede the policies of the NEP, however the guidance contained within, is relevant to the protection of resources that support the agricultural industry and rural economy.

Previous NEC Policy Considerations on Farm Worker Housing

In October 2018 NEC initiated the development of guidance material for several policy topics, including Dwelling Unit(s) Accessory to Agricultural Uses. The most recent report (2021) related to this discussion is attached in Appendix A. In that report, NEC staff identified the following as key considerations for the development of guidance to support policy implementation:

• How the requirement for the dwelling unit to be “mobile and portable” may be achieved.
• How use of an “existing” farm building or structure for the dwelling unit may be achieved.
• How siting of the dwelling unit within the farm building cluster is best achieved; including scenarios for when alternatives could be considered.
• Factors to be considered in determining the appropriate Permit expiration date (i.e. the nature and scale of the agricultural operation, past and proposed future labour requirements, and compliance history); parallel exercise to consider process efficiencies in the Permit renewal process (re-application for continued use of approved dwelling unit).
• Transparency respecting the use of Agreements on Title.

These recommendations were created in consultation with Commissioners who took part in policy working groups and continue to be relevant today. They provide added considerations that could be addressed during the 10-year NEP Review.

6.0 Other Considerations and Relevant Information

The topic of farm worker housing relates to other current issues and policy considerations. These are outlined as follows:

Additional/Secondary Dwelling Units: NEC staff presented the Discussion Paper titled “Detached/Secondary Dwelling Units” in May 2025 which recommended consideration of the current NEP policies, with specific options, such as aligning the policies related to ARUs in Urban, Minor Urban and Escarpment Recreational Areas with the PPS 2024 and contemplating attached secondary dwelling units, that are subordinate to the principal dwelling in Escarpment Protection Areas.

Additional Residential Units in Prime Agricultural Areas – Allowing more opportunity for the development of ARUs in PAAs, either by permitting more units or detached units, may create additional housing for farm worker housing but occupation of these units is not limited to or exclusively for farm workers, family or those working in the agriculture sector. This matter has been recommended by NEC staff as a topic for the 10-year Review of the NEP.

Residential Development on Prime Agricultural Areas: Considerations related to residential development on prime agricultural lands are contemplated in the NEP 10-year NEP Review Discussion Paper titled “Rural Estate Housing on Prime Agricultural Lands”. The outcome of the NEP review and how NEC interprets PPS policies related to PAAs may be relevant to this topic.

7.0 Recommendations

NEC staff recommend this topic be considered during the 10-year NEP Review to determine if amendments should be made to the policies relevant to farm worker housing.

Options and Considerations:

1. Determine if the NEP should be consistent with the PPS regarding farm worker housing as an agricultural use rather than an accessory use.
2. Determine whether all farm worker housing should be temporary and how demonstration of need may influence what is permitted.
3. Consider if:
   1. The definition of agricultural use in the NEP should align with PPS (2024)
   2. And if modifications are required to the definition regarding the permanency of farm worker housing i.e. should only be temporary/portable/mobile.
4. Consider the scope and scale of residential development in the rural designations of the NEP and determine if more permissive policies that allow more housing options, either as dwelling units for agricultural uses/farm worker housing or for general ARUs meet the objectives of the relevant land use designations and overall purpose of the NEP.
5. Revisit/complete the development of technical guidance for NEC regarding dwelling units accessory to agriculture to support effective and consistent policy implementation. (This is not recommended as a standalone option and would need to be further considered pending the outcome of the 10-Year Review of the NEP).

8.0 Conclusion

The provision of appropriate housing for farm workers is a component of a productive agricultural system within the NEP area. However, broader, and more comprehensive strategies for housing in rural areas, which include areas outside of the NEP are also needed. As this Discussion Paper has outlined, current NEP policies regarding farm worker housing provide opportunities but also have associated challenges. While the existing framework emphasizes the importance of minimizing permanent development on agricultural lands, it may not fully reflect the evolving needs of modern agricultural operations or align with updated provincial direction and guidance.

The lack of clarity around definitions and uses, the requirement for temporary and/or mobile or portable units, and the limited flexibility in siting can create implementation challenges and stakeholder concerns. At the same time, the need to protect the Escarpment environment and prevent inappropriate intensification remains a priority.

This topic warrants further exploration to ensure policies are responsive and capable of supporting the agricultural sector while upholding the core objectives of the NEP. A balanced approach that considers the diversity of farm operations, the need for housing flexibility, and the long-term protection of agricultural and natural resources will be essential in ensuring sustainability in the future.

9.0 References

Greenbelt Foundation. 2025. Housing Needs and Actions for the Agricultural Sector in Rural Communities Housing Needs and Actions for the Agricultural Sector in Rural Greenbelt Communities

OMAFRA. (2016). Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas. https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-04/omafra-publication-851-guidelines-on-permitted-uses-inontarios-prime-agricultural-areas-en-04–2-2024.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2024). Provincial Policy Statement. https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-planning-statement-2024

Prepared by:

Original Signed by

___________________ Suzanne Robinson Senior Strategic Advisor

Approved by:

Original Signed by

___________________ Shawn Carey Director

Appendix A: Policy Guideline Development Background and Context Setting: Temporary Dwelling Unit(s) Accessory to Agricultural Uses Accessory Facilities and Uses to Single Dwellings (2021)