Public launch introduces cultural heritage master plan
Administrator | Oct 06, 2024 | Comments 8
By Sharon Harrison
Attendees at a cultural heritage master plan public open house got an introduction to what the community-based plan is all about, and how it is expected to unfold, in what was an early stage engagement for the public.
About 20 people tuned into the virtual meeting which provided opportunity for input, discussion and feedback.
The master plan is expected to be a heritage planning tool to set goals, manage and protect built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the County.
Heidy Schopf, cultural heritage team lead, said a big part of the work so far has been trying to identify themes for identifying the HRs (heritage resources) and CHLs (cultural heritage landscapes) in the County.
“There will be areas that reflect historical associations, architectural value and contextual value that is important to the community, but also to Indigenous nations.”
Themes identified thus far for potential CHLs are national heritage and cultural heritage, shipbuilding, canneries, architectural, farming and agriculture, lighthouses, historic transportation routes, First World War and Second World War.
Scott Pordham, the County’s development policy co-ordinator, explained council has approved development of a draft cultural master plan and recommendations are to result in direction for policies that can be incorporated in the County’s official plan.
He was joined by members of the consultancy firm WSP Canada Inc., selected to conduct the study and prepare a draft plan, including Schopf, Shannon Holness (project planner) and Kanika Kaushal (project manager and senior cultural heritage specialist), joined by Chris Palmer (supervisor museums and cultural services with the County).
The WSP team members explained what a cultural heritage master plan (CHMP) is and went over the project phases and timelines.
“A cultural heritage master plan is a pro-active guidance strategy. Its goal is to provide direction for guiding and preserving rural character heritage conservation matters and supporting a larger economic development goal,” explained Schopf.
The CHMP will contain a vision statement, historical research, a review of the existing policy framework and identification of strengths and barriers to cultural heritage conservation.
“It also has some methodology to identify and evaluate potential cultural heritage resources,” she said. “We are going to be seeking input today in the identification of themes that will help us to support the identification and evaluation of cultural heritage resources.”
It will also include a strategy for identifying, prioritizing, assessing, conserving and celebrating the heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the County.
She explained a CHR is identified in the official plan and includes built heritage resources of all types, including landmarks, barns, cultural heritage landscapes, a heritage conservation district, also individual properties (designated under the Ontario Heritage Act), historic streetscapes, heritage roads, museums and archives, viewscapes, and other cultural heritage resources that may be identified.
Also, archeological resources, but Schopf said this is not the focus of the CHMP.
“We have also heard that CHLs can include natural heritage elements, especially where they intersect with heritage, so that is something we have heard a few times that the County has some very significant national heritage landscapes that intersect with heritage, so we are going to exploring that and taking that into account.”
CHR is an umbrella term that breaks down into three separate categories, she said.
Built heritage resources includes a single built resource, e.g., a house, a church, a monument, a school, a barn, any single building or structure; bridges are also common examples.
A CHL is a collection of landscape elements that can also include built heritage resources.
“A very standard example would be a farmstead, where you have a farmhouse, a barn, silos, work areas, fences, tree lines, which together create a cohesive whole. So it has different elements that collectively create a CHL,” she said.
CHLs can also be natural heritage elements, a garden, a trail system or roadscapes.
An HR is a single building structure or monument. A CHL would have a geographical area that is a collection of those items, including natural heritage landscape elements, she said.
“All of our work that we are doing for the master plan is couched in the guiding principles for the existing municipal heritage conservation strategies that exist in the County,” Schopf said. “The guiding principle here is that heritage is fundamental to our sense of place.”
The in-progress list provides a few examples so far, including:
National heritage: Lake on the Mountain, Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory, Point Petre Wildlife Conservation Area, Sandbanks, Mounds (near Massassauga Point), Little Bluff Conservation Area.
Canneries: Glenora.
Transportation: Carrying Place.
Lighthouses: Point Traverse, Main Duck Island, Scotch Bonnet Island, Weller’s Bay.
Architectural: Wellington Heritage Museum, Crystal Palace, Macaulay Heritage Park, Glenwood Cemetery, West Lake Boarding House, Wishing Tree/Lodge House, Moses Hudgin Log House.
Shipbuilding: Picton Bay, Gravelly Bay, Port Milford.
First and Second World War: Base31.
Attendee suggestions during the meeting also covered the Avro Arrow trail, Miss Supertest power boat racer, commercial fishery at Point Traverse, underground railroad, ports (Black River, Port Milford), viewscapes, wetlands (Slab Creek), stone granary store (Little Bluff). Also, fence rows and hedgerows and stone walls (especially Morrison Point Road), with one idea coming to identify a water provincial park for shipwrecks.
Several people spoke to the County’s tens of cheese factories and its long cheese-making history, with many factory buildings still existing today although they have largely been re-purposed.
Others suggested some categories have their own themes to include ‘industrial’ (to include canneries) ‘shipbuilding’ and lake-faring (rum-running), and cemeteries (noting the countless pioneer cemeteries).
An extensive question and answer session, along with discussion included participants contributing to the themes list, where a virtual white board was updated in real-time with comments and ideas.
A question came up about archeological heritage not being part of the CHMP, where it was asked what policy planning framework addresses or protects it. Schopf said archeological resources are carefully managed, noting that only a licensed archeologist can comment on archeological potential in Ontario, “so it is by design that we are not talking about archeological potential in this plan”.
It was also asked if off-shore heritage would be included in the plan (such as shipwrecks) to which Schopf said there was no plan currently to specifically incorporate it.
One question asked how many of the CHLs already identified are already listed and designated, where Schopf said the purpose of the study is not to do a full heritage review.
“It is more policy-driven. It is not a register review, so we are not going to be looking one-by-one at what is already designated.”
She said if there are things already protected, already designated, there are already some protection and conservation measures in place, so that wouldn’t be the primary focus.
County resident Liz Driver suggested the public be asked to identify specific viewscapes, those important to residents, where she also said the plan should include hamlets and villages as CHLs.
“That not only captures the development of a landscape, that might have started with a mill, and include agriculture and activity, but it also addresses the threat of the PPS (provincial policy statement) 2024 change, which only says you should protect designated properties,” noted Driver.
Andrew Jeanes spoke to the evolution of transportation patterns from primarily water- based to land-based, also rail to roads, and air transportation which ties into the war and military theme. “Changing development of the County as reflected by changes in transportation modes is an important theme.”
The team heard what people thought as the strengths of heritage conservation, essentially what is going well, but also the threats the County is facing.
Noting Prince Edward County’s uniqueness, Gord Gibbins said the strength is that “there is so much history there, so much. That’s the biggest strength that we have, we are so lucky.” But he said there needs to be a new focus. “We are talking dollars; on spending what we have to spend to have a really strong heritage plan and heritage action and heritage trained people.”
In terms of identifying strengths, Victoria Taylor said trees should be included as CHL heritage, where she noted how the municipality and the community are doing so much to recognize trees as heritage. “A lot of trees here are older than the listed buildings. I think we all agree, trees contribute as much as the buildings do.”
In terms of what threats the County is facing to heritage conservation and what can be improved, a few questioners raised the issue of the County’s limited resources, specifically financial resources, and how best to use them to effectively protect sites that may be subject to development applications, in advance of those applications.
“The threat is a money question; how do you maintain those physical assets, and you are in competition with budget in a County that is very budget-challenged right now,” said Robert Waldon.
Gibbins asked how strong the County’s strategy was going to be for heritage. “The County needs to up the ante. We have lots of it, so lots has survived, but basically, we are not strong at council in terms of designating things that people don’t want designated (such as the Salmon Point lighthouse),” he said.
“With the threat of change to the provincial policy statement, it becomes a lot more critical to do as much now as we can. Heritage time is not on our side, we need to do more, faster,” Gibbins said.
Holness also reminded of the urgent cultural heritage matters facing the County.
“There is only two years (until Jan. 1, 2027) to protect all the properties on the cultural heritage register,” said Holness. “The new PPS 2024 states that only designated properties shall be preserved, so we need some urgency around first steps, around implementation.”
“We have to be stronger to protect our heritage because there is no place that has more heritage to protect than Prince Edward County,” added Gibbins.
The project, which began in January, is divided into four phases, and is currently in phase two. Phase three will commence early next year and will focus on identified and evaluation methodology for the CHLs, which will include a draft cultural heritage master plan report. Phase four will include a final version of the master plan, to be ultimately presented to council.
Further public consultation is expected at a later date where the consultants will share findings and present recommendations. In the meantime, details of the project can be found on the County’s Have Your Say page, where the public can leave comments and questions, and pin sites to the interactive map.
Filed Under: Arts & Culture • Featured Articles • Local News
About the Author:
Conservation Area list did not include the significance of Macaulay Mountain Conservation virgin forest & watercourse:
Historically fresh water mountain hollers across North America, just like Macaulay, supported first settlers. In short, this area is the cradle of PEC Civilization. Cold water stream houses preserved dairy year round and provided drinking water. Admit this Historic Village is to be surrounded by 100s if not 1000s of new homes, but maybe there is a way to buffer the incursion on the Macaulay border. Thanks so much!
I applaud work on the Cultural Heritage Master Plan. I am however a bit concerned that money may be being spent somewhat needlessly. There are many existing local resources that I’m not sure where reviewed or even identified by the Consulting group or County staff.
I recall reading several detailed and specific research papers published by a local group (Friends of South Shore) on their website, exactly this topic and it appears to me that what is being planned to happen (in terms of decisions) has already happened during the research phase of those published reports. Was that group even consulted or the research papers reviewed by the consultants or our own County staff?
What about our existing County Archives – do they have background or information that could save time and money.
I agree this is important work it just seems to me that a great deal of time and potentially money could be saved by using existing current local information, especially given the time sensitive nature of this project.
I am pleased to see that the County is working on the development of a cultural heritage master-plan but I have concerns about the definition of such a document provided by Ms. Schopf. The first is the apparent limitation of the plan to rural cultural heritage resources. Does this mean that cultural heritage resources that are located in Picton, Wellington, or Bloomfield would be excluded from consideration? Cultural heritage is not an urban or rural matter and should not be defined in this manner. My second concern is the stated requirement that a site supports a larger economic development goal in order to be given consideration. Heritage is about the history, culture, and character of the community and must not be seen only as an economic development tool. I hope that those guiding this important project will review this definition before proceeding.
Thank you.
The top photo is of a farm in North Marysburgh, on County Road 7. The Adolphus Reach is visible in the distance.
There are a couple of shots like this. There are also several mis-labelled County photographs throughout the Cultural Heritage Master Plan Presentation document.
What about being able go to the beach without having to seek written and noterized permission from 3 levels of government? I have VERY fond memories of those times and think that is a key part of our heritage.
Does anyone recognize the photo at the top of this story? I have attended two of these virtual meetings and am unimpressed by the photos which mostly seem to me not from the County. I probably am wrong and would like to be corrected on this. Please let me know where this farm is – just as a matter of interest. thanks.