2024 CHBA Municipal Benchmarking: Vancouver, Surrey & Burnaby in Focus

Why Benchmarking Municipal Processes Matters

Developers and homeowners in Metro Vancouver know that local regulations can make or break a housing project’s timeline and budget. The Canadian Home Builders’ Association’s 2024 Municipal Benchmarking Study (3rd edition, March 2025) shines a spotlight on exactly those factors. This national study, led by Altus Group, compares 23 municipalities across Canada on key criteria affecting housing supply: approval timelines, development fees, and planning system features. For B.C. stakeholders, the findings aren’t just academic – they highlight how Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby measure up against each other and against national benchmarks on speeding up approvals and keeping costs in check. In a region grappling with high housing demand, these results carry real weight. Faster approvals, transparent processes, and reasonable fees can directly impact how quickly new homes get built and at what cost, which ultimately affects housing availability and affordability for local communities.

Methodology at a Glance: The CHBA study analyzed data from 2022–2024 on how long it takes to obtain development approvals (from rezoning and subdivision to site plan and permits), how much municipalities charge in fees for new developments, and what digital tools or process improvements each city has in place to streamline these steps. Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby were among the cities studied, allowing a direct comparison of these neighboring B.C. municipalities. The goal is to benchmark best practices and identify where delays or costs might be “bottlenecking” new housing. For developers, this offers an objective measure of red tape and expenses in each city. For homeowners and communities, it indicates how well local governments are facilitating (or hindering) the creation of much-needed housing. The bottom line: as B.C. experiences rapid population growth, understanding these benchmarks helps pinpoint where reforms are most needed so that our cities can keep pace with demand.

Approval Timelines: Vancouver and Surrey Leap Ahead, Burnaby Lags

One of the most critical factors for getting new housing to market is the approval timeline – how many months (or years) it takes for a development application to go through all municipal reviews and approvals. A lengthy process can significantly delay projects, driving up financing costs and deferring homes that could be occupied. The CHBA study provides an average approval timeline for each city as of 2024, and the differences are striking.

Figure: Average development application approval timelines in 2024 for Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, compared to the 23-city national average (in months). Vancouver and Surrey now outperform the Canadian average (≈11.6 months) by a wide margin, while Burnaby remains much slower. Source: CHBA 2024 Municipal Benchmarking Study.

As of 2024, Surrey has one of the fastest approval timelines in Canada, averaging just 5.9 months from application to green light. Vancouver’s average timeline is 7.7 months, also better than the national average of ~11.6 months. This is a dramatic improvement for both cities – in the previous CHBA study (2022), Vancouver’s average was over 15 months and Surrey’s was nearly 14 months. Each managed to cut their typical approval times by about 7.5–8 months, an improvement the report deems significant. In practical terms, this means a project that might have taken over a year in Vancouver now often gets through in well under 8 months. For developers, time is money: shaving 7-8 months off approvals reduces carrying costs and allows housing units to be delivered sooner.

By contrast, Burnaby’s timeline, while improved, is still lengthy at 15.9 months on average. Burnaby did bring its timeline down from roughly 21 months in 2022 to 15.9 months in 2024 – about a 5-month reduction – but it remains an outlier in B.C. For context, Burnaby’s timeline is the slowest in the Metro Vancouver region and significantly above the national benchmark (nearly 4 months longer than the 23-city average). Developers in Burnaby currently face an approval process that is roughly double the duration of Surrey’s, which can be a deterrent when deciding where to invest in new projects. Homeowners planning redevelopments in Burnaby also need to brace for a longer wait compared to neighboring cities.

What enabled Vancouver and Surrey to make such large gains in efficiency? The report suggests a few factors. During 2022–2024, many municipalities had a chance to catch up on backlogs as the pandemic rush of applications leveled off. Vancouver and Surrey appear to have capitalized on this, pushing through pending files and overhauling internal workflows. It’s likely that these cities also expanded staff capacity or optimized their processes (for example, delegating more approvals to staff level, or running parallel reviews) to achieve “quick wins” in timeline reduction. The data hints that Surrey and Vancouver shifted more development to proceed as-of-right under existing zoning, avoiding time-consuming rezoning where possible. Burnaby, on the other hand, has continued to handle many large rezonings (for its high-rise town centre projects) and may not yet have implemented the same degree of process streamlining.

Figure: Improvement in approval timelines (average months) from 2022 to 2024 in Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby. Vancouver and Surrey saw major timeline reductions (~7–8 months faster), whereas Burnaby’s improvement was modest (~5 months) and its timeline remains the longest. Data source: CHBA 2024 study (average across all application types).

The implications for developers are clear. In Surrey, a proponent can expect a much quicker turnaround on projects – a competitive advantage if you’re choosing where to build. Vancouver has moved into a reasonably efficient zone as well, especially given its size and complexity; cutting down to under 8 months is a promising sign that internal reforms (and possibly political will to expedite housing) are working. Burnaby, however, may need urgent attention – a 16-month average timeline can significantly erode project viability, especially for smaller builders who can’t endure long carry periods. Burnaby officials have acknowledged this gap and are reportedly taking steps (hiring more planning staff and launching online permitting for some applications) to chip away at the queue, but the CHBA numbers show there’s a lot of ground to cover.

It’s worth noting that even the best timelines in Canada (around 2–6 months in cities like Saskatoon or Moncton) often involve mostly minor applications or ‘shovel-ready’ projects. Metro Vancouver’s development context is more complex, with large multi-family developments and rezoning of established neighborhoods, which naturally takes longer. Still, the goal for our cities should be to eliminate unnecessary delays. Every extra month in approvals not only postpones occupancy for families – it also adds indirect costs (as discussed later) that ultimately get baked into home prices or rents. For homeowners planning a laneway house or duplex in Vancouver, the improved timeline means you might get your permit in a matter of months rather than over a year, making personal projects more feasible than before. In Burnaby, however, the slower pace could be a frustration for someone hoping to redevelop their property or for builders trying to respond to the housing demand in that city.

In summary, Vancouver and Surrey are moving in the right direction on timelines, now performing better than the national average, whereas Burnaby remains an outlier that risks falling further behind. The CHBA study’s overall rankings underline this point: most of the bottom ten performers nationally on the composite index are in Ontario – but Vancouver and Burnaby unfortunately join that bottom group due largely to past delays and other factors. Speeding up Burnaby’s process is not just a bureaucratic concern; it’s a tangible step toward easing the housing crunch in a city slated for growth.

The Cost Factor: Development Fees (Direct Costs) in Low-Rise vs High-Rise

Beyond time, money is the other side of the coin. Municipalities levy a variety of fees on new developments – from infrastructure charges to permit fees – which can significantly impact the cost per home. The CHBA benchmarking study looked at two hypothetical development scenarios to compare direct costs:

• Low-Rise Scenario: A suburban subdivision with 50 single-family homes and 75 townhouses (typical greenfield project).
• High-Rise Scenario: A condominium project with 150 units (mix of 1- and 2-bedroom apartments) on a mid-size urban site.

For each scenario, they tallied all municipal fees per unit – including development charges, community amenity contributions (density bonusing or parkland in-lieu fees), and planning/application fees. The differences between Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby in these cost metrics are just as eye-opening as the timeline data.

Starting with the low-rise scenario (think new houses and townhomes), all three B.C. cities impose above-average fees per unit. The Canadian average for low-rise municipal charges is about $82,600 per unit. Vancouver’s fees are roughly $104,300 per unit, Burnaby’s $103,400, and Surrey’s $95,300. In other words, a typical new single-family home or townhouse in these cities carries $95k–$104k in municipal fees, which is $10k–$22k higher than the national benchmark. Vancouver and Burnaby in particular are near the top end of the cost spectrum (the CHBA study noted the five most expensive low-rise markets were all in Ontario, with Toronto the highest at ~$195k/unit, but Vancouver and Burnaby aren’t far behind that top tier).

Why are Vancouver and Burnaby so high? A big factor is infrastructure fees and density-related charges. In Vancouver, development cost levies (DCLs) and community amenity contributions (CACs) can be substantial, especially when land values are high – these fund parks, childcare, utilities, etc., but they drive up the upfront cost to build each home. Burnaby historically had lower fees, but interestingly, the study shows Burnaby’s charges surged by a whopping $73,900 per unit since 2022, the largest increase of any city. This jump likely reflects new policies (Burnaby has been implementing higher density bonus fees in its town centres) and rising land values affecting parkland cash-in-lieu calculations. Even Surrey, which often touts lower costs, is well above average at $95k/unit for low-rise – Surrey imposes significant development cost charges for roads, schools, and services in its growing neighborhoods, and those have crept up over time (about a $10.6k increase per unit since the last study).

For the high-rise scenario (urban condo project), the cost differences are even more pronounced. Nationally, fees on a high-rise unit average around $35,000 (much lower than low-rise, since many more units share the land and infrastructure costs). Vancouver is an outlier at approximately $122,200 per condo unit in fees. This is over 3.5 times the Canadian average, putting Vancouver near the very top of all cities for high-rise costs. By contrast, Surrey’s high-rise fees are about $58,100 per unit and Burnaby’s $59,600 – roughly half of Vancouver’s, and much closer to (though still above) the national norm. What’s driving Vancouver’s staggering $122k/unit fee burden? The bulk comes from steep infrastructure levies – the study notes Vancouver had about $118,400 per unit in growth-related charges (development levies and amenity contributions) for the high-rise case, with only around $3,800 in permit/application fees. Vancouver’s philosophy has long been to capture a share of land value uplift from rezoning to fund community benefits; as a result, towers in Vancouver carry heavy CACs/DCLs. Burnaby and Surrey, on the other hand, have infrastructure fees roughly in the $53k–$56k range per unit for high-rise, and minimal application fees. Burnaby’s high-rise costs, however, jumped by about $40k since 2022, reflecting new community benefit charges introduced as Burnaby ramps up its urban development – they’re now on par with Surrey for a condo project, whereas two years ago Burnaby was much cheaper.

Figure: Comparison of total municipal fees per unit for a typical low-rise development (yellow) vs. a high-rise development (orange) in Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby (2024). Vancouver’s fees are exceptionally high in both categories – especially for high-rise – while Surrey and Burnaby are more moderate (though still above the national averages). Source: CHBA 2024 Municipal Benchmarking Study data.

For developers, these direct fee differences could sway decisions on where and what to build. In Surrey, a high-rise developer faces about $58k per unit in city charges, which, while not low, is less than half the burden in Vancouver. This might encourage more condo projects in Surrey, since the cost savings per unit (tens of thousands of dollars) can improve a project’s viability or allow a bit more flexibility in pricing units for sale. Burnaby, even after recent increases, still comes in at about 50% of Vancouver’s cost for high-rises, which may explain why developers continue to invest heavily in Burnaby’s town centers – the economics are more favorable than across Boundary Road in Vancouver. Vancouver’s $122k in fees per condo is a substantial cost that likely gets passed onto end buyers. It’s no surprise that Vancouver condos are among the most expensive – the city is effectively front-loading a lot of the infrastructure and amenity costs onto each unit. From a homeowner’s perspective, that means part of the high price of a new Vancouver condo is essentially the “city-building” cost baked in by policy. The question being raised by many in the industry is whether Vancouver can continue to load fees at this rate without exacerbating affordability problems. The CHBA study’s findings might add pressure on Vancouver to revisit some of its fee structures, or at least ensure that such fees are providing commensurate public benefits that residents can see.

On the low-rise side, all three cities are relatively expensive places to develop new ground-oriented housing. This has broader implications: if adding a new single-family home in Vancouver or Burnaby comes with $100k in city fees, it’s going to be very hard to produce “affordable” ownership housing. This reality might partly explain why we see fewer new townhome projects in Vancouver – the pro formas are tough when land and fees are so high, thus many builders shift to high-rise (or leave for suburbs) despite those carrying their own costs. For Burnaby and Surrey, the high fees on low-rise might discourage the smaller builders who typically do townhouse projects or subdivisions, possibly contributing to the relative scarcity of new townhome supply in favor of larger-scale condo developments where costs per unit are lower.

The takeaway for policymakers is that direct fees have become a significant portion of development costs, especially in Vancouver. The CHBA report highlights that these fees on low-rise units have risen by an average of $27,500 nationwide since 2022 – and Burnaby alone accounted for a +$73,900 jump. While infrastructure needs funding, cities must balance this with the need for housing. If fees continue to outpace incomes or rents, projects stall or housing prices simply climb to absorb the costs. For homeowners, hefty development fees can also trickle down – for example, someone looking to build a new home on their lot in Surrey or Vancouver will face these fees (scaled down for a single lot, but still significant in the form of development cost charges, permit fees, etc.), which increases the cost of that home construction.

In summary, Vancouver stands out for high development fees – particularly for condos – while Surrey and Burnaby, though cheaper than Vancouver, are still above national averages in both low-rise and high-rise categories. Efforts to reduce or offset these costs (through incentives or provincial grants, perhaps) could be part of the solution to improve affordability. The data clearly shows that any efficiency gained in shortening timelines, Vancouver somewhat loses in sheer dollar costs per unit. An ideal reform agenda would tackle both time and money: streamline approvals and re-examine fee structures to ensure they are not overshooting their mark.

Planning System Features: Digital Support and Transparency

The third pillar of the CHBA study is more qualitative but equally important: Planning system features and best practices. Essentially, this looks at how municipalities facilitate efficient and transparent development processes through tools and policies. In 2024, the study scored cities on 13 features (down from 16 in previous editions) related to development application processes – such as online application portals, electronic plan submission, public tracking of application status, clear guide documents, customer service measures, etc. These are the nuts-and-bolts improvements that can make life easier for both applicants (developers/homeowners) and city staff, by modernizing and demystifying the process.

On these planning features, Vancouver and Surrey score in the middle of the pack nationally, while Burnaby scores toward the lower end. According to the data, Vancouver and Surrey have implemented roughly 70% of the best-practice features, whereas Burnaby sits around 50%. To put that in context, the top municipalities (such as Ottawa, Markham, or Edmonton) scored around 90%, having almost all available tools in place. The lowest were around 30%. So Vancouver and Surrey are doing some things right but still have room to grow; Burnaby is lagging behind the curve in adopting new systems.

What do these features include in practice? For example, digital application portals are a big one. Vancouver and Surrey both launched online permit/application systems in recent years. Vancouver’s POSSE system (and related online dashboards) and Surrey’s online development portal mean that many applications can be submitted and reviewed electronically. Burnaby, by contrast, only started rolling out online applications for certain permits recently (Development Approval Process (DAP) | City of Burnaby), and many processes still require manual paper submissions or emails (Burnaby’s website as of 2024 indicated that planning applications like rezoning still needed hard copies, even if building permits could be done via a portal (Find a development application or permit | City of Vancouver)). Having a fully digital submission process speeds things up (no need to print 10 sets of drawings and physically deliver them) and increases transparency (applicants can log in to see status updates).

Another feature is application tracking and transparency for the public. Vancouver publishes an online map of active developments and their status (Find a development application or permit | City of Vancouver), and provides basic status tracking for applicants through their online account. Surrey similarly offers status updates via its portal. Burnaby has a public list of issued permits and a map of major projects (Major Development Projects – City of Burnaby), but it’s less interactive; you might not easily find the stage of your specific application online without calling the planning department. The CHBA study likely credited cities that provide real-time status tracking and clear estimated timelines at each step. This kind of transparency not only helps developers plan (knowing, for instance, that a file is awaiting engineering comments vs. waiting for council scheduling), but also builds trust with the community – residents can see where a proposed development is in the process.

Customer service and accountability tools are another aspect. For instance, some leading cities have customer satisfaction surveys or regular reporting on approval timelines to the council. A notable example from the study: one municipality (cited in the report’s case studies) implemented a customer satisfaction scoring system for permit applicants, using feedback to drive continuous improvement. The text indicates an impressive 86–92% of applicants in that city reported being satisfied with the service – which speaks to a culture of responsiveness. It’s not explicitly stated which city this was (possibly Edmonton or Calgary, which have been innovating on this front), but it’s an approach others could emulate. Vancouver and Surrey have made progress here too: Vancouver has a dedicated Project Facilitator program for larger projects and has in the past published target timelines and annual processing statistics. Surrey often highlights its “client-friendly” approach and has a dedicated staff team to shepherd applications. Burnaby, until recently, had a reputation for more old-school processes – lengthy committee referrals, less proactive communication – though it’s reportedly improving. The CHBA feature score reflects that Burnaby had not yet adopted several common best practices by 2024, perhaps in areas like early consultation tools, unified application checklists, or interactive online information.

The study’s combined ranking hints at how these features tie in with outcomes. Many of the top-ranked cities (Edmonton, Halifax, London, etc.) have moderately good timelines and fees and also robust planning features, suggesting that embracing modern tools correlates with better performance. Meanwhile, Vancouver and Burnaby’s inclusion in the bottom 10 overall is partly due to their weaker planning features relative to peers. In short, technology and process innovations aren’t just bells and whistles – they can shorten wait times and improve predictability. For example, an online completeness check might catch missing documents in days rather than an application sitting in a pile for weeks before someone flags it. Or a digital plan review software might allow parallel reviews by different departments, something paper plans made difficult.

From a developer’s perspective, dealing with City Hall is much smoother when these features are in place. The ability to apply from your office computer, track progress without having to make multiple phone calls, and get clear information on requirements can save countless hours (and frustration). For homeowners who may only interact with the permit system once or twice (for a renovation or new build), user-friendly guides and transparent processes are critical – you don’t want to feel like you need a consultant just to navigate the forms. Cities that offer step-by-step guides, checklists, and even dedicated staff to answer questions make the experience far less intimidating.

Vancouver has published extensive online guides and now allows digital submissions for most permit types, which is a boon to small builders and homeowners. Surrey has likewise streamlined its front counter services and online presence. Burnaby is catching up – the city did launch a “MyPermits” portal for some permits and is working on expanding it (Development Approval Process (DAP) | City of Burnaby), and they have begun to consolidate their development application intake process – but the CHBA score suggests Burnaby was behind as of data collection. One known gap was that Burnaby didn’t have a consolidated development application checklist online – whereas Vancouver’s “Development Process Handbook” and Surrey’s online checklist give applicants a clear idea of what studies or plans to submit, Burnaby historically provided that information in pre-application meetings or by request, adding an extra step.

The good news is that all three municipalities recognize the need for modernization. The fact that Vancouver and Surrey scored ~70% means they have most key features in place but perhaps not yet at a “best in class” level of execution. For instance, they might have online systems but maybe not full integration between departments or not all permit types online (some cities still exclude complex rezoning from online intake, requiring physical plans for certain stages). Continuous improvement, such as integrating GIS for public notification or providing open data on application timelines, could push those scores higher. For Burnaby, adopting the remaining half of the features (like full e-permitting, enhanced transparency tools, and improved public online info) should be a priority to complement any staff increases they are doing to speed up approvals.

In conclusion on this point, Vancouver and Surrey have made solid strides in digitizing and streamlining their development processes, while Burnaby needs to more fully embrace these 21st-century tools. Embracing technology and transparency isn’t just about bragging rights; it directly correlates with faster, more predictable outcomes which benefit everyone from large developers to individual homeowners. The CHBA study essentially provides a “scorecard” that Metro Vancouver cities can use to check off which best practices they’ve adopted and which are still missing – a roadmap for further improvement.

How Can Each Municipality Improve?

Given the findings above, what can Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby do to improve their performance even further (or catch up, in Burnaby’s case) without simply adding unlimited new resources? The tone of the CHBA report and the needs of stakeholders suggest a few targeted strategies for each city:

• Vancouver: Vancouver has dramatically improved timelines – the challenge now is maintaining those gains even as application volumes rebound. To do this with current staffing levels, Vancouver can expand initiatives like pre-zoning more areas for higher density (so that more projects are “as-of-right” and skip lengthy rezoning hearings). The city’s recent moves toward new zoning allowances for multiplexes and apartments in low-density areas could help, as they reduce the need for case-by-case approvals. Additionally, Vancouver might re-examine its fee structures. With fees per unit so high, the city could look at creative ways to offset costs for projects that meet critical needs (e.g. rental housing or below-market homes) – perhaps waiving certain charges or using provincial/federal contributions to cover infrastructure for those projects so that not every cost is loaded onto the developer. Vancouver should also continue to leverage technology: fully implement electronic plan review (so multiple departments can review a digital plan simultaneously), and consider publishing real-time metrics on its processing times. Publicly sharing performance data can create accountability and highlight where bottlenecks persist. Vancouver has some unique challenges (complex, politically charged public hearings for rezoning, for example), but sticking to recently introduced streamlined rezoning policies (like standardized inclusionary zoning targets, clear CAC policies) can remove uncertainty and keep approvals moving. For homeowners and small builders, Vancouver could further improve its concierge service or one-stop application assistance, so that individuals proposing a modest project aren’t lost in the system behind the big towers.

• Surrey: Surrey’s results are largely positive – fast timelines and moderate fees – so the focus should be on managing its rapid growth without backsliding on service. Surrey is the fastest-growing city in B.C., on track to overtake Vancouver in population, which means application volumes will likely increase. Maintaining staffing levels proportional to growth will be key; Surrey should proactively add plan checkers, inspectors, and planners as development activity rises, to avoid future backlogs. The city can also build on its digital platform: perhaps adding more functionality like automated status notifications (so an applicant gets an email when their file moves to the next stage) and ensuring that all types of applications (subdivisions, rezoning, etc.) are fully online. Surrey has relatively high fees for low-rise development; while some of that is dictated by regional infrastructure needs, the city could explore incentives like fee rebates for projects that complete within a certain timeframe or for those that provide affordable housing – essentially using fees as a lever to encourage desirable outcomes rather than just a revenue tool. Another improvement area is inter-departmental coordination: as Surrey’s engineering and planning departments handle the influx of complex urban projects (e.g., around SkyTrain expansion areas), making sure their reviews are integrated (perhaps a single-window approach for developers) will prevent delays. Given Surrey’s strong position, it can aspire to be a provincial leader in approval efficiency – perhaps piloting a program to approve standard form housing (like a pre-approved set of laneway house designs) quickly, or guaranteeing permit timelines with money-back guarantees (some cities have tried this). This would cement Surrey’s reputation as the place in Metro Vancouver that welcomes new housing investment with open arms and minimal red tape.

• Burnaby: Burnaby clearly has the most work to do. The CHBA study data sends a loud message: get approval times down and modernize the process, or risk undermining Burnaby’s own goals for growth and housing. Burnaby is slated for major population increases (Metrotown and Brentwood alone will see tens of thousands of new residents in coming years), and the City has targets for adding housing, including affordable units. To achieve this, Burnaby must accelerate its approvals. Since hiring many new staff overnight is challenging, Burnaby should focus on process reforms first. One idea is to implement a development application “SWAT team” – a cross-functional team that takes projects from intake to decision in a coordinated way, rather than the traditional siloed hand-offs that can cause months of delay. This approach was used in some cities to clear backlogs. Burnaby should also embrace more delegation: perhaps allowing qualified proposals to be approved by staff (or the City’s Director of Planning) without needing full council vote each time, especially for smaller or compliant projects. Every step that can be removed or done concurrently will chip away at that 15.9-month average. On fees, Burnaby’s massive increase in charges per unit could have unintended consequences (potentially deterring the very development in town centres that the city wants). Burnaby could consider phasing in new fees more gradually, or providing waivers for priority projects (for example, waiving certain fees if a developer is building rental housing or daycare facilities as part of the project). Essentially, be strategic with fees so they don’t halt development – a high fee that results in no project is zero sum for everyone.

  Burnaby also lags in planning system features, so a big push toward full e-permitting and transparency could yield quick wins. Simply moving all application forms and submissions online (which Burnaby has started for some permits) would save weeks of administrative time. Implementing an online tracking system where developers can see which departments have signed off would bring Burnaby in line with its neighbors. Burnaby might also learn from best practices elsewhere: for instance, Calgary drastically improved its timelines by instituting a rigorous timeline monitoring and reporting system, and by conducting parallel reviews (planning, engineering, and legal all reviewing at once rather than sequentially). Burnaby could adopt similar measures. Also, improving communication with applicants can prevent delays – e.g., if a rezoning report is going to council, let the applicant know the date and ensure all requirements are clear well in advance.

In all three cities, a common theme for improvement is greater transparency and collaboration. The development process involves not just city hall but sometimes external agencies (utilities, provincial ministries for transportation or environment). The CHBA report notes that delays are not solely the city’s fault – other agencies play a role and need to be accountable too. Municipal leaders in Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby can advocate for those partners (like health authorities for sewer approvals, or the Ministry of Transportation for traffic approvals) to also speed up and coordinate timelines. This could mean regular coordination meetings or escalation protocols when, say, a utility sign-off is holding up a project. Given B.C.’s push to increase housing supply, even the province might step in to set timeline requirements for certain approval stages or help fund system upgrades.

Conclusion: Building for the Future – Tying Growth to Reform

Metro Vancouver is in a period of rapid growth and intense housing need. As the CHBA study highlighted, between 2021 and 2023 all major Canadian municipalities saw explosive population growth, fueled by record immigration. Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby are no exception – these cities are welcoming new residents by the thousands. Yet, at the same time, the study notes that places like Vancouver also saw significant outflow of people to other regions, largely due to housing affordability issues. In other words, people want to live here, but if we don’t build homes fast enough and keep costs reasonable, we risk pricing them out and driving them away.

The findings of the 2024 Municipal Benchmarking Study give a data-driven mandate for action. Streamlining development approvals and moderating extra costs isn’t about making developers happy – it’s about ensuring we can house our growing population. The report even correlates the municipal benchmarking index with housing outcomes: unsurprisingly, cities that rank low on the index (i.e., slower timelines, high fees, poor processes) tend to have worse housing affordability and availability outcomes. Vancouver and Burnaby, being in that low-ranked group, have indeed struggled with affordability – evidenced by near-zero rental vacancy and sky-high prices. If those cities can improve their index scores by adopting the reforms discussed, we can expect better housing outcomes: more units built, and potentially at prices more locals can afford.

Looking forward, all three cities must align their development processes with the scale of growth coming. Surrey is projected to add well over 100,000 residents in the next decade; Vancouver has ambitious housing targets (e.g., the City’s Housing Vancouver strategy and new provincial targets require tens of thousands of new units); Burnaby’s town centres are slated to become major urban hubs. Achieving these will require processes that facilitate rapid yet thoughtful development. The provincial government has set housing targets for municipalities and is even introducing legislation to streamline approvals if cities don’t act. This external pressure makes it even more crucial for Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby to be proactive. They might consider forming a regional task force on development process innovation – share what’s working (Surrey’s fast tracking, Vancouver’s digital tweaks) and collectively pressure other stakeholders (like TransLink or provincial ministries) to coordinate on approvals.

In concrete terms, the next steps could include: Vancouver continuing to cut red tape by broadening outright approvals under its new zoning reforms; Surrey investing in an automated permitting system for simpler applications (imagine getting a patio permit or secondary suite permit in minutes through an online portal – not far-fetched with today’s tech); Burnaby perhaps setting a bold goal such as “approve 90% of rezoning applications within 12 months” and reorganizing internally to hit that mark. Setting clear targets tied to population growth is a smart approach – e.g., “if we need 10,000 new homes by 2030, our processes should enable 1,000+ homes approved each year, which means cutting average approval time by X and handling Y applications concurrently.” By treating housing approvals as a crucial infrastructure of its own, each city can ensure the systems don’t buckle under the load of increased demand.

Finally, it’s worth emphasizing to readers – especially developers and homeowners – that these improvements benefit the entire community. A faster approval that still upholds standards means quality housing gets delivered sooner. Lower regulatory costs mean savings that can be passed on or used to make projects viable that otherwise wouldn’t be. And transparent, efficient processes mean less risk and uncertainty, which attracts investment into creating new housing options (from rental apartments to innovative co-housing or new affordable homeownership models).

The 2024 CHBA Municipal Benchmarking Study essentially gives Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby a performance review with actionable insights. The tone for all three should be one of continuous improvement. As of 2024, Surrey and Vancouver can be cautiously congratulated for their progress – but they must institutionalize those gains. Burnaby should take the data as a wake-up call to dramatically enhance its approach. If these cities act on the lessons from the study, Metro Vancouver could very well see a more responsive development climate. That means more homes built in less time – and ultimately, more choices and better affordability for the families and individuals who call these cities home. By tying reforms to the clear need (and opportunity) presented by population growth, our municipalities can ensure that growth translates into thriving, well-housed communities rather than an exacerbated housing crisis. The challenge is substantial, but the path is becoming ever clearer: cut the delays, rein in excessive costs, and leverage all the tools at our disposal to build the future our region needs.

Sources: Key data and findings are drawn from the CHBA 2024 National Municipal Benchmarking Study (3rd Ed., March 2025) and its figures. All numerical comparisons and quotations are attributed to this report’s analysis of Vancouver, Surrey, and Burnaby’s performance relative to the 23 Canadian cities benchmarked. The discussion aligns with the report’s insights on timelines, fees, and planning features, interpreted for local context.