Part 2: Film Policy, Heritage Oversight, and 2025 Conference Updates - 11/06/2024
- PECConnect
- Nov 6, 2024
- 6 min read
The meeting focused on how Prince Edward County should balance economic opportunities tied to film production with the growing need to protect heritage buildings and conservation districts. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that while the County supports attracting film and television projects, heritage protection cannot become secondary to commercial activity.
The discussion revealed strong concern that film productions often operate under tight timelines and may unintentionally damage fragile heritage features if clear rules and oversight are not in place.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Karen Explains Regional Film Initiative Goals
Karen, speaking on behalf of the regional film initiative, explained that the broader goal is to make the Bay of Quinte region more film-friendly while maintaining consistent policies across participating municipalities.
She noted that productions frequently work under compressed schedules and that filming plans can change quickly once crews arrive on location. Because of this, municipalities need policies that are flexible enough to accommodate production realities while still protecting local interests.
Karen also shared examples from communities such as Belleville, Port Hope, and Quinte West, where film activity has sometimes produced long-term economic and promotional benefits. In some cases, productions left behind upgraded infrastructure or increased tourism visibility. In other situations, however, municipalities needed stronger oversight to address operational issues or protect sensitive sites.
For Prince Edward County residents, the discussion signaled that the County remains open to attracting film production but intends to establish boundaries and protections before problems arise rather than reacting afterward.
Edwin Rowse Raises Strong Warnings About Heritage Risks
Edwin Rowse raised some of the strongest concerns during the meeting, drawing on his own direct experience with film productions involving heritage properties.
He warned that film crews often assume heritage features can simply be modified temporarily and restored later without long-term consequences. Rowse stressed that even seemingly minor alterations can permanently damage original materials, finishes, or historic character, especially inside designated heritage buildings.
He pushed for much stronger wording within the draft policy, including clearer definitions around what qualifies as an alteration and stronger requirements for municipal oversight during filming activities.
Rowse also argued that productions involving designated properties should require mandatory on-site supervision to ensure heritage protections are respected throughout filming.
His comments reflected growing concern that Prince Edward County’s expanding number of heritage properties and conservation districts could become increasingly vulnerable as film activity grows.
For local property owners and residents living in heritage areas, the discussion reinforced the importance of proactive oversight rather than relying solely on production companies to self-monitor heritage impacts.
Sam Grosso Highlights Practical Concerns Around Filming
Sam Grosso focused on several practical issues tied to film production operations, including filming hours, noise impacts, and the realities of how productions actually function on location.
He specifically raised concerns about generator noise, late-night operations, and the need for realistic timelines within the policy so that municipal rules reflect actual production practices rather than idealized assumptions.
The discussion highlighted that film production affects more than just heritage buildings themselves. Nearby residents, businesses, and neighbourhoods can also experience disruption from equipment, lighting, traffic, noise, and long filming schedules.
Committee members generally agreed that the policy needs to balance economic development with practical protections for both heritage assets and surrounding communities.
Ultimately, the committee supported moving the draft film policy forward but made clear that stronger heritage safeguards must remain part of the final framework.
Committee Encourages Learning From Other Municipalities
Several members stressed that Prince Edward County should learn from the experiences of other municipalities already dealing with increasing film production activity.
Sandy Latchford emphasized that a positive experience with one production company does not guarantee future productions will behave similarly. She argued that clear rules and consistent oversight are necessary because productions vary widely in professionalism, scale, and operational impact.
Members generally agreed that establishing strong expectations early will help prevent future conflicts and reduce pressure on staff, property owners, and residents once filming activity increases.
The conversation reflected a broader effort to ensure Prince Edward County develops a proactive film policy rather than relying on reactive enforcement after problems occur.
Ontario Heritage Conference Seen as Major Opportunity
Chris delivered a detailed update on planning for the 2025 Ontario Heritage Conference, which is expected to bring approximately 200 heritage professionals to Prince Edward County over three days.
The conference schedule will span multiple communities and venues, including Picton, Base31, and several rural heritage locations. Programming is expected to focus on adaptive reuse, Indigenous heritage, cemetery conservation, public art, architectural preservation, and cultural landscapes.
Committee members praised the scope and ambition of the event, with Sam Grosso and Edwin Rowse both describing it as an important opportunity to showcase Prince Edward County’s leadership in heritage conservation and adaptive reuse planning.
Staff also highlighted the economic impact expected from the conference through overnight stays, restaurant activity, tourism spending, and broader exposure for local businesses and attractions.
For residents, the conference positions Prince Edward County as a provincial heritage destination while also bringing direct economic benefits to both urban and rural areas.
Loyalist Parkway Designation Moves Forward
The committee also unanimously supported moving forward with the heritage designation for the property at 17811 Loyalist Parkway.
During the discussion, Edwin Rowse identified several factual inaccuracies within the historical background materials, particularly involving dates connected to church use on the site. Staff confirmed that the errors were administrative and would be corrected before the designation proceeds to Council.
The discussion reinforced the importance of maintaining accurate historical records within designation reports, both to protect property owners and to strengthen the credibility of the County’s heritage program overall.
For residents, the designation means the property will receive formal protection under the Ontario Heritage Act, helping preserve its historical significance moving forward.
Wellington Heritage Conservation District Implementation Continues
Councillor Kate MacNaughton confirmed that the Wellington Heritage Conservation District is now fully active following resolution of the Ontario Land Tribunal appeal process.
Implementation work is already underway, including title registration, public notification, and future district signage planning.
Committee members discussed the importance of creating signage that is visually consistent between Wellington and Picton while also respecting the heritage character of each community. Members agreed signage should be based on best practices from other municipalities and should clearly communicate district boundaries without becoming visually intrusive.
Edwin Rowse volunteered to research examples and standards from other heritage conservation districts to help guide future design decisions.
For residents and visitors, the signage project is intended to improve awareness of heritage district boundaries and make it easier to understand where heritage rules and protections apply.
Quorum Challenges Continue to Affect Committee Operations
The meeting also highlighted ongoing governance and attendance challenges facing the committee.
As anticipated at the beginning of the session, several members needed to leave early, causing the committee to lose quorum before all agenda items could be completed. Remaining business was deferred to the next meeting.
Members acknowledged that weekday morning scheduling and virtual participation continue creating challenges for maintaining full attendance and continuity during longer meetings.
Several participants expressed hope that returning to in-person meetings may help improve participation, engagement, and overall meeting flow moving forward.
Overall Takeaway From the Meeting
Overall, the meeting reflected a committee increasingly focused on balancing heritage protection with economic growth, tourism activity, and evolving development pressures across Prince Edward County.
Discussions surrounding film policy, heritage district implementation, conference planning, and designation accuracy all pointed toward a growing recognition that heritage management is becoming more active, more complex, and more connected to broader municipal planning decisions.
For residents, the meeting reinforced that Prince Edward County intends to continue supporting tourism and economic opportunities while also strengthening oversight and protections for the heritage assets that help define the community’s identity.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 54:38. 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.
Comments