Heritage committee bypassed in approval for Drake Devonshire extension

Administrator | Sep 01, 2026 | Comments 1

By Sharon Harrison
The disputed heritage permit application for the Drake Devonshire’s planned three-storey addition at 20 and 24 Wharf Street in Wellington, has been approved by council.

Construction will proceed in accordance with the drawing package from Superkül Architects, along with a re-consideration (also approved by council) for a recommendation for the provision to include additional glazing (windows) on the north side of the new addition.

“On balance. staff are satisfied that the proposal appropriately conserves the identified heritage attributes of the property and the district, while also meeting the broader policy objectives that exist for Wellington,” said Cristal Laanstra, director of development services.

At last week’s council meeting, the Drake’s legal counsel, David Bronskill with Goodmans LLP, outlined why council needs to approve the permit application.

“You do, under the legislation, have a 90-day window that will basically close by Sep. 11 and you do need to make a decision here tonight,” Bronskill explained. “If you do not make a decision, and defer this for any additional amount of time, unfortunately, under the Ontario Heritage Act, you will be deemed to have issued the permit.”

He said, council does have the option to refuse, but that would trigger an appeal and a hearing under the Ontario Land Tribunal. “It’s a process I don’t think is conductive for anybody and it’s certainly not an efficient process, and it’s also not a cheap process.”

Councillor John Hirsch asked again if his client still will not allow an extension of the 90-day timeframe, with Bronskill confirming the position of the Drake is that they are not prepared to extend the 90 days.

Hirsch also spoke about the process that needs to be followed in these cases, where he again briefly outlined how things have unfolded.

“The amazing thing is that we are being held hostage by the applicant unwilling to extend the time-frame when we were given an extremely short amount of time to actually look at the permit application.”

“I want to remind everyone, this is a heritage permit application for an alteration to a contributing building within a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) with not enough time to do it,” said Hirsch. “The heritage committee which is charged with making a recommendation in these cases said it is wasn’t able to do that because it wanted additional work to be done and council turned that down and essentially referred it to staff to make a decision.”

“And here’s where the process in my view is incorrect,” he said, adding that going forward, council/staff need to work better on the process.

“For council to seek advice from staff in place of the heritage committee is not consistent with the direction of the Ontario Heritage Act. And, unfortunately, that’s what we’ve done, we’ve asked staff to come up with the recommendation, and they have come up with their recommendation.”

He said, it is the heritage committee’s job to come up with the recommendation, not staff’s.

He also highlighted how, if the representatives for the Drake had filed their application for the permit over a year ago, “we wouldn’t be in this bind”. He said drawings related to the file go back to May 2025, yet they only filed the application in May 2026. “And we don’t know why they didn’t do it, and we ended up with this time crunch and we haven’t had time to look at this properly.”

“It is still the heritage committee’s view that this decision should not stand as a precedent under the HCD. We feel that the process has not been followed properly.”

The Drake’s closest neighbour, Richard Elliott, spoke again on the matter, as he has done countless times before. In particular, he spoke to the Wellington HCD plan rules which he said were very clear.

“No demolition of contributing properties of any building or structure, any new construction has to retain the façade of adjacent buildings, additions have to be smaller than the existing building, and additions have to be in the back away from the street, so they are not visible,” Elliott outlined.

“They are demolishing the pavilion building on the contributing property, the critical provision in the plan above all is that construction shall maintain the general façade height of adjacent buildings. The buildings proposed are huge, more than twice the size of our buildings. The provision about locating additions to the rear, their addition is completely on Wharf Street.“

In their report, Laanstra and planner Emily Overholt, noted that the proponents are seeking to construct a three-storey addition onto the east façade of the existing two-and-a-half storey hotel. The proposed addition is to be located partially within the footprint of an existing non-contributing dwelling on the property along with various modern structures that are to be demolished to facilitate development of the new addition.

The Wharf Street location of the Drake falls within the new Wellington HCD, and that largely has been at the crux of the issue for allowing the heritage permit to proceed. The two properties at 20 and 24 Wharf street were formerly separate lots until they were merged in 2022, three months after approval of the HCD plan and prior to the consolidation of the lots, which are identified separately in the plan.

“The previous landholding for 24 Wharf Street constitutes the majority of the existing property and is identified as a contributing property under the plan,” notes the report. “Whereas, the previous landholding for 20 Wharf Street is limited in area and is identified as non-contributing.”

In August 2023, the built and cultural heritage advisory committee raised concern with the previous design proposal stating that the height for the proposed addition did not conform to the intent of the HCD plan. The design concept was revised to eliminate the rooftop pool and change room to reduce massing for the addition.

The application was discussed at the advisory committee meeting on July 8, where it was recommended the heritage permit application decision be deferred. When the item came to the council meeting on July 21, council referred the application to staff for a recommendation, which they ultimately recommended for approval.

The staff report and related documentation as discussed at the Aug. 25 council meeting can be found on the corresponding agenda item on the County’s website, along the with meeting recording.