Part 1: Draft Cultural Heritage Master Plan Enters Final Consultation Phase - 09/03/2025

The meeting opened virtually with quorum confirmed and routine procedural steps completed, including agenda approval, adoption of the August minutes, and confirmation that there were no declarations of pecuniary interest. Chair Valrie Porter kept the meeting moving steadily, with a brief reminder from Bob Waldon that September 30 is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, a point framed as especially relevant to heritage and archaeology work.

Photo: PEC Council/ YouTube

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

Draft Cultural Heritage Master Plan Presented

The central focus of the meeting was a detailed presentation of the Draft Cultural Heritage Master Plan, delivered by consultants Heidi Schaaf and Kanika Patel from WSP, with support from County planning staff. The presentation marked Phase Three of a four-phase project, meaning the plan is now in draft form and entering its final round of public feedback.

Photo: Canva

WSP walked the committee through the purpose and structure of the master plan, explaining that it is designed as a proactive, community-based strategy focused on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. The consultants emphasized that the plan is meant to evolve over time and act as a practical implementation tool, not just a policy document.

They highlighted extensive historical research, fieldwork, community engagement, and Indigenous nation engagement undertaken to date.

Identifying Cultural Heritage Landscapes Across the County

A major portion of the presentation focused on the identification of approximately 65 potential Cultural Heritage Landscapes across the County. These were developed using thematic research, community mapping through the Have Your Say platform, Indigenous perspectives, previous studies, and on-the-ground field verification. The consultants explained the inventory system, mapping methodology, and how each potential landscape was evaluated, including development pressure, existing recognition, and recommended next steps.

Strengths, Gaps, and Risks in Heritage Conservation

The committee was also walked through a SWOT analysis embedded in the draft plan. Strengths included the County’s strong sense of place, engaged heritage community, and tourism value. Weaknesses included the lack of a dedicated heritage planner, inconsistent evaluation processes, limited delegated authority for minor alterations, and the perception by some property owners that designation is a burden. Threats included development pressure, Bill 23’s impact on listed properties, and the risk of losing heritage resources before formal evaluation.

The presentation acknowledged that heritage conservation and development can coexist, and that proactive planning is needed to manage change without eroding the County’s character. The consultants confirmed that the draft plan is now publicly available and that an in-person public open house is planned for approximately one month later, intended to reach residents who are less comfortable with online engagement.

Public Engagement and Next Steps

Following the presentation, the committee engaged in a long and candid discussion. Members raised questions about public engagement methods, clarity of terminology, use of acronyms, alignment with other heritage initiatives, and how recommendations for designation were determined. Several members expressed concern about errors in the inventory list, including properties that no longer exist or have been moved, and questioned why some Indigenous and natural heritage sites were not recommended for designation.

Despite the concerns raised, the committee formally received the presentation, thanking WSP and staff for the depth of work and signaling that feedback would continue through the public consultation phase.

The meeting then moved on to a planning submission related to the County Road 3 Cidery site, where the committee endorsed the Cemetery Task Team’s submission regarding a nearby historic cemetery. Discussion clarified survey boundaries, access roads, and long-standing protections around burial sites. The endorsement passed without opposition.

Working Group Updates and Heritage Capacity Challenges

The latter part of the meeting focused on working group updates, particularly the Heritage Designation Working Group. Members acknowledged that the group has not met since the previous chair stepped down and discussed the need to regroup before the legislated deadline affecting listed properties. Staff cautioned against uncoordinated outreach to property owners, emphasizing the importance of consistent messaging and avoiding perceived pressure.

Budget, Permits, and Upcoming Work

Staff also provided updates on recent heritage permit activity, remaining heritage budget funds, and plaque inventory. It was confirmed that roughly $10,500 remains in the heritage budget, with some funds likely needed for upcoming plaques tied to pending designations.

The meeting concluded with discussion of the work plan, upcoming consultations related to heritage conservation district signage, and confirmation that the next committee meeting will be held November 5, 2025. A motion to adjourn was passed, and members closed on a light note with encouragement to attend the Picton Fair.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:30:009. 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.