Surrey rejects Metro Vancouver options restricting where it develops

Surrey is rejecting alternatives proposed by Metro Vancouver after the city requested the regional government loosen the restrictions on where it can allow development to take place.

In summer 2025, Surrey – along with Delta and the Township of Langley – wrote to Metro Vancouver urging reform to the Urban Containment Boundary, saying it was “limiting their ability” to accommodate the region’s growing demand for housing and local jobs.

The UCB is a long-term, regionally defined area for urban development that focuses growth in this boundary to minimize urban sprawl and its negative impacts, protect agricultural, industrial, and ecologically important lands, and support the efficient provision of major regional transportation and infrastructure investments.

The UCB is “is obstructing our collective ability to plan for and deliver the housing, employment land and critical services our rapidly growing South-of-the-Fraser communities require,” the three cities wrote in the letter.

“South-of-the-Fraser municipalities will accommodate the largest share of the region’s future population and job growth — yet only a fraction of developable lands lie within the existing UCB,” said the letter. “The status quo is untenable; persisting with it will deepen the region’s housing shortage, constrain industrial expansion and undermine transportation investments.”

Surrey outlined three policy changes to the UCB:

Redefine it to allow for targeted expansion for sites that are contiguous extensions that are outside the Agricultural Land Reserve and ecologically sensitive areas

Reclassify qualifying amendment requests

Introduce a streamlined realignment mechanism to permit site-specific adjustments that are consistent with local plans without requiring a full amendment.

What followed was Metro Vancouver staff having discussions with the three cities, leading to some proposed changes, including a one-time amendment for a special study area. Other options didn’t come with any specifics, said a city staff report.

City staff said it has studied the Metro Vancouver’s ideas and “determined that the draft proposal would not address Surrey’s request for more decision-making autonomy and flexibility.”

Discussions on possible reforms are ongoing, said the city staff report.

The Metro Vancouver Report proposes four Metro 2050 amendment options for pre-consultation:

Option 1: Type 3 amendment: Add new Special Study Areas in the requesting municipalities;

Option 2: Type 1 amendment: Re-Classify amendments to lands with a Rural regional land use designation from Type 2 to Type 3 amendments;

Option 3: Type 1 amendment: Expand amendment opportunities for properties adjacent to the Urban Containment Boundary; or

Option 4: Type 3 amendment: Expand use of the flexibility clause (6.2.7) for properties adjacent to the Urban Containment Boundary.

The Report indicates that the proposed amendment options were based on feedback from the South of the Fraser member jurisdictions and Metro Vancouver’s staff’s best assessment of viable policy options.

However, these options were not developed with appropriate feedback and collaboration with Surrey,” said Surrey city staff. “After the initial meeting with Surrey and Metro Vancouver staff, Surrey expressed eagerness to work on other options and had anticipated additional meetings to work through potential solutions in meeting Surrey’s need for flexibility.”

Option 4: Type 2 Amendment

“Option 4 in the Report may have some merit, in that it partially addresses Surrey’s request for more flexibility and autonomy,” said Surrey city staff. “This Option allows municipalities to proceed with certain types of RGS Amendments without having to go forward to the MVRD Board. However, this option does not consider site complexities and various site conditions impacting Urban Containment Boundary (“UCB”) adjacency requirement. For example, certain geographic factors can impact meeting the requirements for contiguity with UCB, and those kinds of cases are not considered in the current Option 4 format. Further discussion with Surrey could help convey the local context and assist in developing additional criteria for the UCB adjustments under the flexibility clause that could provide the needed autonomy that Surrey is requesting.”