Part 1 : Heritage Committee Focuses on Base 31, Insurance Risks, and Practical Guidance - 08/06/2025

This meeting covered a lot of ground, but the main focus stayed tightly clustered around Base 31, heritage insurance, and the committee’s ongoing role in education, oversight, and consistency.

Photo: PEC Council/ YouTube

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue for speaker comments and councillor votes>

The meeting opened with routine housekeeping. Chair Valrie Porter confirmed the agenda and minutes, with a brief discussion about where updates on the long-awaited Cultural Heritage Master Plan would best fit. The answer was later confirmed. Consultants are expected back in September with an update, which was welcomed by the committee after a long wait.

The biggest and most time-consuming item was the draft Memorandum of Understanding for Base 31, dealing with how heritage buildings at the former Camp Picton and Prince Edward Heights would be treated during redevelopment. This was not a vote to approve or endorse the MOU, only a vote to receive it and provide feedback.

Representatives Sandy Latchford and Steve Willis (Stantec) explained that the MOU is a voluntary, good-faith agreement. It is meant to guide how alterations, reuse, and potential demolitions are handled for identified contributing and non-contributing buildings. Several committee members raised concerns about clarity, timelines, and safeguards once the legal heritage listing expires in 2027.

There was strong interest in making sure heritage value does not simply disappear when legal authority ends. Members also pushed for clearer references to individual building attributes, not just site-wide studies, and for better mechanisms to allow the committee to provide advice when complex changes are proposed.

After receiving the Base 31 document, the committee moved into a substantial discussion about insurance for heritage-designated properties. This topic clearly struck a nerve. Members shared real-world experiences showing that insurance availability and cost vary wildly, that insurers are often poorly informed about what heritage designation actually protects, and that homeowners are frequently surprised by premium increases after designation.

The group agreed that education needs to be strengthened. Not just passive information sharing, but clear guidance that pushes owners to actually speak with their insurers before designation. There was broad support for updating the committee’s existing insurance guidance document, adding insurer examples where possible, and making expectations clearer so owners do not later feel misled.

The meeting also included approval of a heritage permit for signage at 45 Picton Main Street, updates on the master list of permits, and task team progress reports. There was discussion about keeping historical permit data available for consistency and precedent, while also improving how stale or unresolved items are tracked.

Later in the meeting, attention turned to work planning, including heritage plaques, signage for Heritage Conservation Districts, and limited budget clarity. Members acknowledged uncertainty around how much funding remains available and agreed more follow-up is needed with planning staff and council before advancing signage work.

The meeting wrapped with updates on designation work in progress, cemetery task team coordination, and examples of how the committee has been helping property owners connect with skilled heritage trades. The next meeting was set for early September.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:13:052. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.