LeMarchant Challenges Cleveland’s Defence of Cobourg’s Planning Record

Pete Fisher
8 hours ago
• Categories: Local

‘Leadership is not being for development or against development. Leadership is establishing a vision’

A Cobourg mayoral candidate is challenging Mayor Lucas Cleveland’s explanation of the Town’s current development climate, arguing that municipal leadership — not the Province — must ultimately take responsibility for determining how Cobourg grows.

Max LeMarchant is responding to a letter from Cleveland published in local media on August 26, 2026, in which the mayor outlined the provincial planning framework and defended his record on development.

LeMarchant argues that while the Province establishes the rules municipalities must operate under, it does not determine Cobourg’s vision for growth.

“The Province establishes the planning framework within which Cobourg must operate,” LeMarchant said. “It does not decide how Cobourg should grow, where density should be located, what heights and built forms are appropriate, which neighbourhoods and heritage assets should be protected, or what character we want our Town to have.

“Those are fundamentally municipal responsibilities.”

LeMarchant said Cobourg does need development, including new housing, investment and responsible growth.

But he argues that simply supporting or opposing development does not constitute a municipal planning vision.

“The objective should be well-planned growth in the right places, at the right scale, that protects Cobourg’s character, heritage and quality of life while accommodating the housing and economic needs of the future,” he said.

At the centre of his criticism is Cobourg’s Official Plan.

LeMarchant says Cobourg has reached the final year of the current Council term with what he describes as a badly outdated Official Plan.

At the same time, he points to the Town proceeding with a new Comprehensive Zoning By-law before completing the Official Plan update.

He argues that sequence puts the cart before the horse because zoning is intended to implement the policies and vision established through the Official Plan.

“That sequence was backwards and has implications for taxpayers because the zoning framework will necessarily have to be reconsidered as the new Official Plan is completed,” LeMarchant said.

“More importantly, an outdated Official Plan leaves developers, planning staff, Council and residents without clear contemporary direction.”

LeMarchant said developers need to know what the municipality wants before investing substantial time and money into major projects.

Planning staff, he added, also need a clear, current, Council-approved policy framework establishing where density should go, what scale is appropriate and what community features need protection.

“Without that direction, the field for interpretation becomes much wider,” he said.

LeMarchant argues that combining that uncertainty with the removal of important height restrictions creates conditions for increasingly large and transformative development applications.

“That is very close to what we are now experiencing,” he said.

He rejects the suggestion that processing applications faster is an answer to the broader planning issue.

“Processing applications faster is not a substitute for planning,” LeMarchant said. “Building more housing is not itself a planning vision. Removing height limits is not a planning strategy.”

‘Least development-friendly Mayor’

LeMarchant also takes issue with Cleveland repeatedly describing himself as perhaps the “least development-friendly Mayor” in Cobourg’s history.

“I do not believe that is something a Mayor should celebrate,” he said.

“The measure of good municipal leadership is not how little development occurs or how much development occurs. It is whether the development that does occur is responsible, well-planned and consistent with a clear community vision.”

LeMarchant believes municipal planning should be proactive rather than reactive.

“A municipality should establish its vision, clearly communicate it to landowners and developers, and work constructively with them to bring forward projects that advance that vision,” he said.

Staff are not the target

LeMarchant also takes exception to Cleveland’s suggestion that criticism of planning outcomes amounts to attacking professional Town staff who have “no public microphone” with which to defend themselves.

He says that is not his argument.

“I am not questioning the integrity or professionalism of individual Town employees,” LeMarchant said.

“My concern is whether they have been given the organizational structure, professional resources and current policy direction necessary to succeed.

“That responsibility ultimately rests with municipal leadership.”

LeMarchant points specifically to August 14, 2025, when Cleveland exercised his Strong Mayor authority through directive MDEC-2025-008.

According to LeMarchant, the directive reorganized the Development Division, appointed its Director, established a Deputy Director position and placed Planning, Development Engineering, Building and Economic Development within that structure.

LeMarchant said he has never alleged that Cleveland personally writes professional planning recommendations.

His argument, he said, is about accountability.

“When a Mayor uses extraordinary executive powers to restructure an important municipal department and appoint its leadership, he also assumes responsibility for ensuring that department has the structure, expertise and policy framework it needs to perform successfully,” he said.

The 6–1 question

LeMarchant also challenges Cleveland’s repeated references to being outvoted 6–1 on Council.

He says that fact does not resolve questions about political leadership.

“A Mayor has one vote, but municipal leadership requires the diplomatic skills to build relationships, persuade, compromise, find common ground and develop consensus among elected councillors,” LeMarchant said.

“No Mayor will win every vote. But if the relationship between the Mayor and the rest of Council becomes persistently dysfunctional, the Town as a whole suffers.”

LeMarchant said Strong Mayor powers may be lawful, but executive authority cannot replace the ability to bring elected officials together.

“Strong Mayor powers may be lawful, but executive directives cannot substitute for the ability to bring an elected Council together around a common direction,” he said.

The restaurant analogy

LeMarchant uses a restaurant analogy to explain what he sees as Cobourg’s planning problem.

“Think of Cobourg as a restaurant,” he said.

“The citizens are the owners. The Mayor is the manager. The planning staff are the kitchen. The Official Plan is the menu — the owners’ vision of what the restaurant intends to serve.

“And the zoning by-law is the recipe book that translates that vision into what the kitchen can actually prepare.”

LeMarchant asks residents to imagine walking into that restaurant and discovering that its menu is 15 years out of date, while the recipe book has already been rewritten.

“They expect one kind of meal but are served supersized fries and a Big Gulp,” he said.

“When they ask the manager what happened, they are told that government policy encourages more calories and that the kitchen had to process the order quickly.”

He argues the analogy illustrates the distinction between provincial rules and municipal responsibility.

“Government may establish health regulations and broad nutritional requirements, but it does not determine the restaurant’s menu,” he said.

“Likewise, the Province establishes the planning rules within which Cobourg operates. It does not determine Cobourg’s vision. That remains our responsibility.”

And unlike an unwanted meal, LeMarchant points out, development decisions cannot simply be sent back to the kitchen.

“A high-rise built in the wrong place or at the wrong scale may remain part of Cobourg for generations,” he said.

“Poor planning decisions can permanently affect neighbourhoods, infrastructure, heritage, municipal finances and quality of life.”

A different approach

LeMarchant says Cobourg now needs to change the way it approaches growth.

He is calling for completion of a modern Official Plan, a clear planning framework, stronger professional capacity within the Development Department, appropriate safeguards around height and built form, and a more collaborative relationship with developers.

He says the Town should be working toward responsible growth rather than simply reacting to applications as they arrive.

“Mayor Cleveland is entitled to explain the provincial constraints under which Cobourg operates,” LeMarchant said.

“What he cannot reasonably do is attribute responsibility to the Province, previous Councils, other councillors, developers, heritage advocates or Town staff while avoiding accountability for the condition of municipal planning after nearly four years of his leadership — particularly after personally using Strong Mayor powers to restructure the Development Department and appoint its leadership.”

LeMarchant says the debate should not be reduced to whether someone is “for development” or “against development.”

“Leadership is not being for development or against development,” he said.

“Leadership is establishing a vision, building agreement around it, giving staff the tools to implement it, and taking responsibility for the results.”