“Lessons learned” report to come on Cold Creek sub-division
Administrator | Jul 22, 2026 | Comments 2
By Sharon Harrison
A “fulsome and transparent” report from staff will be forthcoming on the “lessons learned” from the 870-unit Cold Creek residential development (bordering Sandy Hook Road/County Road 1), regarding the draft plan of sub-division and zoning bylaw amendment.
Councillor Chris Braney was seeking council’s support for the resolution he brought forward and he got it in a 12-1 recorded vote in favour. Councillor Roy Pennell was the only member opposed (councillor Phil Prinzen was absent).
The report Braney is seeking from the chief administrative officer will serve as a resource for managing future complex planning applications and inter-agency agreements, and he has requested it include a chronological timeline of the file.
Braney said he wants the report to explain why a well-respected community organization, such as the Warings Creek Improvement Association (WCIA,) which had a written agreement with the County to protect the creek and its headwaters, was discounted without explanation.
The report is expected to come back to council in the first quarter of 2027.
In his resolution, Braney cites the Minutes of Settlement entered into (executed February 2008) between the County and the association.
He also outlines how the Cold Creek sub-division application underwent a detailed review process, including a decision at the Oct. 16, 2024 planning and development committee meeting, ratification by council (Nov. 12, 2024), and a subsequent motion to re-consider approved by council (Nov. 26, 2024). Council approved the application on Feb. 11, 2025, and received legal advice regarding the implementation of the 2008 Minutes of Settlement.
“This file involved unique administrative procedures, complex jurisdictional matters, serious irregularities, and significant community feedback that offer tangible insights for future municipal operations,” states the resolution.
Some council members, including councillor Phil St-Jean, didn’t like the wording “serious irregularities” although most were happy with the resolution’s intent.
St-Jean called the two words “presumptive” and said that bothers him, but was otherwise comfortable with requesting a lessons learned report. Councillor Bill Roberts suggested the words were “provocative” and “not helpful”.
“I believe we should always be looking for lessons learned if something doesn’t go quite right or there were problems that arose; you should reflect on them and try to do better,” said St-Jean.
Councillor John Hirsch said it was important to take this step to “clear the air on the whole matter, with hopes that it doesn’t happen again”.
“As far as serious irregularities, it may well be that the COA doesn’t find any serious irregularities, or if he finds them, we want to hear about them,” Hirsch added.
When asked several times by some of his fellow councillors to remove the words causing issue, a defiant Braney was adamant that they stay, saying he was “very firm” on his decision on keeping them in.
“I’ve already made it very clear, I am clear on “serious irregularities”,” said Braney. “Many of my council colleagues feel there were serious irregularities that were committed with this file.”
However, after some lengthy discussion, council voted 7-6 in a recorded vote to remove the two words (with councillors Phil St-Jean Sam Branderhorst, Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard, Sam Grosso, Bill Roberts and mayor Steve Ferguson in favour).
Several members of the public spoke at Tuesday’s council meeting, including Cliff Rice, with improvement association.
He said, in almost two years of being immersed, the WCIA has developed an intimate knowledge of the “often frustrating convolutions” of this entire file.
“The support of this motion will allow the COA to develop a fulsome report about all the convolutions of this file,” stated Rice. “If the COA in this case is allowed unfettered independent reporting, that is not influenced by anybody, particularly by the administration of this County, then the report could lead to important recommendations which will allow situations like this to be avoided in the future.“
Member of the public Penny Morris said two things alarm her about the development, firstly addressing how she believes that the permission granted was limited to phase 1, and that no permission would be given to later phases until ongoing monitoring takes place and is evaluated.
“What approval was actually given and what is in place to control whatever impacts may be happening with phase 1?” asked Morris. “Last year, in July and August, references annual monitoring reports would start in April 2026. Where is this report, what’s happening, and where are the results?”
Braney said he was looking for that information also.
COA Adam Goheen noted that while he doesn’t have the awareness of this file from the beginning, he is interested in learning.
“I am interested in delving into this, I am a little bit nervous. I don’t have a lot of time to put this much into it, but I don’t have awareness from the beginning and I am interested to see what that research will tell us.”
Braney said, one of the most important things that can be achieved or delivered to residents is accountability, transparency and integrity.
“You have to follow through to enable those three factors are followed through on and that there’s transparency and we communicate that to our residents to offer trust in our processes, and how we move things forward around this table,” expressed Braney. “So, I think it’s very important to have some truth come out on this, that people realize that we actually are concerned about this and we care about it, and we want to get answers to it.”
“I want to make sure that the public understands that if we make a mistake, we don’t necessarily shove it under the carpet,” added Mayor Steve Ferguson. “We assess and evaluate what happens so it doesn’t happen again, and I think that’s an important point to make that we are always on a course of continuous improvement.”
“The sooner we can get transparency on this, the more relieved I’ll be,” added Braney.
Details of the resolution for the Cold Creek sub-division development lessons learned report can be found on the agenda for the July 21 council meeting on the County website, along with the meeting recording.
~ ~ ~
Some background on Waring’s Creek by councillor Chris Braney:
“Waring’s Creek, as many of you may not know, is Prince Edward County’s only cold-water creek; it’s fed primarily by deep ground water. The 17.3-square-kilometre watershed, that runs from the western edge of Picton, roughly parallel to Ridge Road, it drains into West Lake. Because of its unique cold-water temperatures, the stream supports highly-sensitive aquatic life, including native brook trout and the endangered Blanding’s turtle.
This creek is recognized by Prince Edward County as a significant natural heritage feature and since 1993, the stream has been fiercely protected and rehabilitated by the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association. This respected community-based group had dedicated years of their time, money and passion to restore Waring’s Creek’s habitats, plants, trees and advocacy to upgrade culverts in order to maintain the waters fragile temperature and quality.
The creek and its surrounding aquifer has been the centre of on-going environmental debates regarding proposed major housing developments, such as the Cold Creek and Loyalist Heights sub-divisions, even though the WCIA had a written agreement with the municipality to protect the creek and its headwaters from developments that could risk damaging the watershed.
Waring’s Creek also supports water sources for many farms, and protects our food security in Prince Edward County. Many residents of Prince Edward County, as well as my council colleagues, are concerned about serious irregularities surrounding the approval of these developments. “
Cold Creek sub-division conditionally approved, with more studies needed
Filed Under: Featured Articles
This development should never have been approved. Why it was against resident concerns and serious threats to Warrings Creek makes this investigation so necessary. We need to know how this was allowed to proceed. We do know that some members of Council did receive Campaign donations from the Developer. As they say, let’s follow the money!
So, it isn’t classified as “serious irregularities” when Council dismisses “a well-respected community organization, such as the Warings Creek Improvement Association (WCIA,) which had a written agreement with the County to protect the creek and its headwaters, was discounted without explanation”. The wording caused concern with some of this Council’s tender sensibilities? It damned well should! Put those words back in, Council, – or does giving your “word” and “Signing an Agreement” with a steadfast and well established Community Organization as the WCIA – officially – mean nothing?