EBR Registry # 013-0914…

EBR Registry # 013-0914
A Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process

Graham Chernoff
Culture Service Advisor
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Culture Division
Programs and Services Branch
401 Bay Street Suite 1700
Toronto Ontario
M7A 0A7
Phone: (416) 314-7134

Dear Mr. Chernoff,

Re: A Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process

I provide the following comments with respect to the above. I write as a qualified professional planner and as a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. Due to the fact that I am unavailable in November I have provided only brief comments in order to meet the deadline for comments. I restrict my comments to those matters addressing only built heritage resources, cultural landscapes and protected heritage property as referred to in the PPS.

Guidelines that explain any technical processes are always welcome. The objective in any such guidelines should be to explain and provide guidance in a clear and concise manner. In this regard the guidelines are very cumbersome and lack clarity. In many areas the guidelines providing confusing and sometimes conflicting advice. In some cases the Guideline is wholly inaccurate. Their use in providing guidance is questionable either to the lay person or indeed the qualified professional.

Three types of cultural heritage properties to be conserved The PPS 2014 identifies three types of cultural heritage properties that are the subject of the policy directive pursuant to the Planning Act, as follows:

•“significant built heritage resources”

•“significant cultural heritage landscapes”

•“protected heritage property”

Of critical importance is that the guidelines should make it clear that it is the conservation of “significant built heritage resources” and “significant cultural heritage landscapes” that is the subject of the planning policy directive within a planning context under the Planning Act. Critically important to everyone, especially given the definitions in the PPS which form part of the policy directive, is how to differentiate “significant built heritage resources” and “significant cultural heritage landscapes” from simply “built heritage resources” and “cultural heritage landscapes”. This is not clearly addressed in these guidelines.

In this regard the meandering style of the guide suggests a more focused approach should have been adopted.

Use of the term “significant” Of particular concern is that the Guideline needlessly drifts to referencing the Ontario Heritage Act and in particular the use and application of Ontario Regulation 9/06. The regulation is intended for use only in the context of designating property under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

While the evaluation criteria may be useful for consistent assessment of cultural heritage resources and their “cultural heritage value or interest” they are not useful for deriving a measure of “significance”. The word “significance” or “significant” is not used in the title of Part IV, (the title is Conservation of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest). The supporting Regulation 9/06 to Part IV designations is specifically titled Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The word “significance” or “significant” is not used in the title. Moreover, the word “significant” is used only one of the three classes of the criteria, namely in in sub-sections 2. I and 2.iii:

2.The property has historical value or associative value because it, i.has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, and iii.demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

The continuing reliance on evaluation criteria that are established for a specific purpose under the Ontario Heritage Act cannot simply be carried over to a Guideline under the PPS 2014 under the Planning Act.

Use of the term “heritage attributes” The PPS 2014 defines “heritage attributes” only in the context of a “protected heritage property”. In the guidelines they tend to be sprinkled throughout the Guideline in varying contexts. These must be suitably edited out to avoid needless confusion and also misdirection.

3.3 Protecting Built Heritage Resources Given my time constraints I have not provided the many examples where the Guidelines are misleading. Section 3.3, does however, serve as a useful example. The title of section 3.3 would suggest that the subject matter is “Built heritage resources” and how to protect them. This is not the case here.

The subsection then launches directly into a discussion of a “protected heritage property”. The definition of “Built heritage resources” in the PPS is fundamentally different from “protected heritage property” as it speaks to built heritage resources being “generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers.”

The use of the term “generally” and the reference to registered properties suggest that these are examples of the generality but could specifically include built heritage resources that are not designated or registered or not even subject to any previous inventory work. Accordingly, the Guidelines are insufficient to the point of providing misdirection to the lay person or professional, and most importantly to decision makers.

Recommendations

I am unsure whether these Guidelines have been subject to any prior review in draft form or been subject to any critical peer review by professionals who have used the previous guidelines and appeared before decision makers. It is my recommendation that:

1. Consideration of this Guide be deferred and re-visited due to errors, inaccuracies and lack of clear direction in the Guide.

2. Professionals in this field are appropriately consulted prior to issuance of any further work or revisions on this Guide.

[Original Comment ID: 211231]