Part 2: Structure, Enforcement, and Future Planning – 05/13/2026

While much of the May 13, 2026 Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee meeting focused on long-term planning, the discussion revealed clear differences in how members think heritage work should be handled in Prince Edward County moving forward. The conversation touched on Wellington, North Marysburgh, County museums, cemeteries, and the future of heritage enforcement, all while highlighting how much change could be coming over the next council term.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

One of the strongest voices during the meeting was heritage advocate Liz Driver, who urged the committee to rethink its structure before the next term begins. Driver argued that the committee’s current format may no longer be able to fully handle the growing responsibilities tied to heritage conservation, especially with the upcoming implementation of the Cultural Heritage Master Plan and increased focus on cultural heritage landscapes.

Driver repeatedly emphasized that museums, cemeteries, and heritage designation work all require different expertise and different legislative knowledge. She specifically stated that museums are “not getting their due attention” within the current committee structure and suggested museums should have their own committee altogether. She also raised concerns that the committee has become more of a “clearinghouse” for reports instead of a place where all members fully engage in heritage decision-making together.

Councillor John Hirsch agreed that the issue is becoming too large and complicated to fully resolve in one meeting. Hirsch supported using Driver’s annotated terms of reference document as a starting point for future discussions and acknowledged that the committee may need a stronger structure moving forward. However, Hirsch also defended the idea of keeping one central committee while relying on specialized working groups underneath it.

Hirsch explained that working groups could allow experts in designation, cemeteries, or museums to focus on their own areas without forcing every discussion through long formal public meetings. He argued that working groups are easier to staff with knowledgeable volunteers because they offer more flexibility and fewer procedural limitations.

Not everyone fully agreed on that direction. Edwin Rowse pushed back several times during the discussion, saying heritage designation work and heritage permit work are closely connected and should not be too separated from the main committee itself. Rowse warned that the amount of work expected under the Cultural Heritage Master Plan will be “hugely and massively increased” over the next several years and stressed that knowledgeable discussion needs to remain central to the committee’s role.

Committee Chair Sandy Latchford largely positioned herself as a mediator during the debate. Latchford repeatedly reminded members that many committee participants were absent and deserved a chance to contribute before any final recommendations are made. She also pointed out the practical challenges of relying on volunteers, saying municipalities cannot force residents or councillors to participate on committees if they are unwilling or too busy.

Latchford also highlighted concerns about timing. She reminded the committee that the upcoming municipal election will likely create delays before any new committees are formed in 2027, meaning recommendations made this year may not fully take shape until well into the next council term.

Outside the governance discussion, several updates focused on specific areas of the County.

In North Marysburgh, committee members confirmed that work is continuing on potential heritage designations. Janice Gibbins reported that criteria evaluations for several suggested properties have been completed and that letters to property owners are expected soon. Hirsch noted there was still some discussion happening around the wording of those letters before they are finalized.

Staff confirmed that information packages connected to the new Wellington Heritage Conservation District are about to be mailed to roughly 250 homes and businesses. The packages will explain what designation means, outline available heritage grant programs, and provide information about heritage permits.

The Wellington discussion also expanded into concerns about heritage enforcement and documentation. Latchford, Hirsch, and several others supported the idea of creating a visual archive of Wellington streetscapes and buildings. Members discussed taking updated photographs of storefronts, homes, and even tree canopies to create a modern historical record for future permit reviews and enforcement cases.

Hirsch specifically said those photos could become important evidence if disputes ever arise over unauthorized changes to heritage properties. Several members agreed that older archival photos are often too incomplete or unclear to properly document modern conditions.

The committee also spent time discussing the County’s broader heritage enforcement problem. Latchford openly expressed frustration that heritage recommendations and permit conditions can sometimes be ignored without consequences. Staff confirmed that legal and planning staff are expected to present possible enforcement solutions at the June meeting as part of a larger property standards bylaw discussion.

Toward the end of the meeting, members also discussed how the Cultural Heritage Master Plan could dramatically increase future workload for heritage committees. Rowse and Driver both stressed that future members will likely need far more training on provincial heritage legislation, heritage planning tools, landscapes, and County heritage policies than previous committees required.

What This Means for Locals

For Wellington residents and businesses inside the new Heritage Conservation District, the meeting confirmed that official notifications and permit guidance are finally arriving soon. Property owners can expect more direct communication from the County in the coming weeks.

The designation process continues moving forward, meaning some property owners may soon receive heritage evaluation letters tied to potential future protections.

Residents may also begin seeing stronger heritage enforcement rules emerge later this year. If approved, those changes could give the municipality more authority when heritage properties are altered without approval.

Most importantly, the meeting showed that the County is entering a major transition period for heritage conservation. The decisions made over the next year about committee structure, training, enforcement, and implementation of the Cultural Heritage Master Plan could shape how local heritage is protected across PEC for years to come.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:00:19. 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.