Part 1: Cultural Heritage Plan Sparks Urgent Debate at Heritage Committee - 02/04/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 4
- 4 min read
The Built & Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee met virtually on February 4, 2026. The main focus of the morning was the long-awaited Cultural Heritage Master Plan (CHMP) prepared by WSP Canada Inc., now in its final phase and scheduled to move to Planning and Development Committee later this month.
What unfolded was a detailed and sometimes tense discussion about whether the plan is ready, what happens next, and how quickly the County needs to act to protect listed heritage properties before provincial deadlines take effect.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Cultural Heritage Master Plan Under the Microscope
The bulk of the meeting centered on Item 9.1 of the agenda, the Cultural Heritage Master Plan update.
Committee members heard from a member of the public who raised concerns about the content of the final report, including questions about Appendix B, the identification of priority properties, and whether committee input had been fully incorporated.
Much of the discussion focused on two related issues.
First, whether the document contains errors or gaps that need correction before it moves forward.
Second, how the County should respond to upcoming changes under Bill 23, which will require municipalities to either designate or remove listed properties from the municipal heritage register by January 1, 2027.
Planning staff confirmed that WSP had completed the scope of work originally contracted. Any additional revisions beyond that scope would require further Council direction and potentially additional funding.
Committee members acknowledged that the plan was never intended to be a static document. It was described repeatedly as a “living document,” meaning it can evolve over time. At the same time, several members emphasized that action cannot wait, particularly when it comes to listed but not designated properties.
After extended debate, the committee passed a motion recommending that Council receive the Cultural Heritage Master Plan as a living document. It also directed staff to work with the committee and other contributors to develop a process for implementing the plan’s recommendations within six months, and to work with the committee and the Heritage Designation Working Group on options to mitigate risk to listed but not designated properties in light of Bill 23.
The six-month timeline was added to signal urgency, especially given the January 1, 2027 deadline.
Flashback February and Public Outreach
Under Item 9.2, the committee discussed Flashback February, a month-long focus on heritage programming .
Councillor John Hirsch shared that the Picton Gazette will publish a heritage-focused issue in mid-February. An article prepared by Hirsch and edited with assistance from Porter explains the designation process and addresses common misconceptions about insurance and heritage restrictions.
The goal is to encourage more property owners to consider designation and better understand what it involves.
Heritage Permits and Planning Review
The committee formally endorsed recommendations from the Heritage Permit Task Team for two minor heritage permit applications: HP-17-25 at 178–180 Picton Main Street and HP-01-26 at 164 Picton Main Street
Members clarified that for minor permits, the task team’s comments are endorsed for the public record, while final approval rests with staff.
The committee reviewed a Site Plan Control application for SP-17-24 (The Cape) at 347 Picton Main Street.
Members expressed concern that site plan review can proceed before a required heritage permit is obtained. Councillor Hirsch noted that planning staff are aware of the timing issue and have indicated a willingness to explore procedural improvements so heritage considerations occur earlier in the process. The committee endorsed the Heritage Permit Task Team’s submission on the application.
Signage, Cemeteries and Ongoing Work
The Heritage Conservation District signage project remains active but behind schedule. Staff confirmed that a meeting will take place later this month to determine next steps and provide a more concrete update in March.
Updates were also received from the: Heritage Designation Working Group, Cemetery Task Team, and Heritage Permit Task Team
Members highlighted the importance of incorporating community stories and cultural context into designation work, not just technical criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Key Takeaways
The Cultural Heritage Master Plan is moving forward, but not finished. Council will soon consider the final consultant report. The committee is recommending that it be treated as a living document with further refinement and implementation planning to follow.
There is urgency around listed properties. Changes under Bill 23 mean the County must act on listed but not designated properties before January 1, 2027. Work is expected to accelerate in the coming months.
Heritage protection and development processes are still being aligned. Discussions continue about how and when heritage review should occur within planning applications to avoid delays and conflicts later in the process.
The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2026.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:16:41. 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