Public engagement on the early stages of developing Rocky View County’s Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) has highlighted three key areas of concern: locational criteria, site monitoring and enforcement, and third-party technical reviews.
On Tuesday, Rocky View County (RVC) council received a comprehensive “What We Heard” report summarizing feedback gathered between February and March 2025. Engagement on the ARP, currently in development, drew about 1,400 comments from 266 participants through four open houses and an online survey. More than 100 people attended in person, while 166 completed the survey online.
In his report, RVC planner Colt Maddock stated that while feedback showed general support for the proposed initiatives, residents and stakeholders offered suggestions to strengthen the plan.
“Several key themes emerged from the engagement process, including concerns about the proposed locational criteria, the implementation of monitoring and enforcement, and the need for unbiased reviews of application documents,” Maddock’s report states.
The engagement process was based on five of six key recommendations developed by the Aggregate Resource Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAR), a group composed of four county residents and two aggregate industry representatives. The committee released its final report in April 2024.
RELATED STORIES:
-
Stakeholder committee first step in creating aggregate resource plan
-
Progress too slow on RVC aggregate plan, believes Gravel Watch
The recommendations aim to strengthen regulation, improve transparency and ensure public involvement in aggregate development. They include developing specific performance standards, proactively monitoring sites, conducting expert reviews, updating application requirements, and creating a publicly accessible online platform to share information.
The committee also called for a mandatory stakeholder engagement process for all new applications and renewals.
A sixth recommendation—to write the ARP using clear and accessible language—was not prioritized for this stage of engagement.
County administration also committed to exploring two additional areas that did not achieve consensus within the committee: the development of locational criteria and the use of third-party technical reviews.
The most feedback was received on the proposed locational criteria. Many participants said the exclusion zones should be expanded to better protect nearby communities. In contrast, industry representatives warned that broader buffer zones could increase consumer prices due to higher trucking costs.
Participants supported the introduction of performance standards but stressed the need for proactive monitoring and compliance enforcement. Administration said the proposed Aggregate Site Monitoring Bylaw would allow the county to take a more active role, though industry representatives raised concerns over the cost-sharing model it includes.
The third major issue was the county’s plan to hire independent experts to review technical documents submitted with planning and development applications. Administration is still seeking a qualified consultant for this role, which would include reviewing both new applications and monitoring reports. Industry stakeholders again flagged cost-sharing as a concern.
The ARP is in the second of a four-phase development process.
Administration is scheduled to bring the report to the CAO Workshop on aggregate development performance standards, an aggregate site monitoring bylaw, a land-use bylaw, and municipal development plan amendments.