Draft Ontario Heritage…

Draft Ontario Heritage Toolkit on Heritage Conservation Districts
I live in a Heritage Conservation District in Ottawa. Rockcliffe Park, founded in 1864, has been a residential heritage conservation district since 1997. Our independent community was amalgamated with the city of Ottawa not long thereafter, and a new heritage plan was adopted in 2016.

I have found the current version of the Toolkit on Heritage Conservation Districts of help in the past as, since our amalgamation with the city of Ottawa, we struggle to protect the special heritage character of our historic community.

I welcome many statements in the draft toolkit which recognize the importance of heritage conservation districts to communities, regions, the province and the nation. Especially important is the recognition of the community “as the users and ultimate guardians” of districts and their heritage, and the statement “Designation allows a community to recognize and commemorate what it values within an area, that contributes to its sense of place.”

The toolkit states: “The immediate benefit of HCD designation is a planning process that respects a community’s history and identity. District designation is one of the best ways to ensure that this identity is conserved. The adoption of an HCD plan as part of the designation process ensures that the community’s heritage conservation objectives and stewardship will be respected during the decision-making process.”

Quite simply, we wish that were true.

There is widespread support in our community for the protection and enhancement of our heritage – both the built heritage and the unifying parklike setting that has been at the heart of the design of the community since its origins. This was resoundingly confirmed in a recent survey of residents. We are, as well, blessed with a hugely devoted and well qualified community Heritage Committee which reviews and comments on development applications. It works closely with city heritage staff and strives to come to a common understanding of and approach to development applications. Sometimes this proves to be possible, sometimes not.

Since amalgamation with the city of Ottawa, all too often, our heritage plan has failed to ensure that the city’s decisions respect the conservation objectives or a plain-reading of the provisions of our heritage plan. We understand the political reality of the contributions which the development industry makes to city councillors’ campaigns, and their well-established multifaceted relationships with both city councillors and city staff.

Our highly qualified and hard-working community heritage committee – unpaid volunteers - and residents generally – are not regarded as the ultimate guardians and voice of our community, or anywhere near it. The adoption of our heritage plan has not ensured that that our community’s objectives and stewardship, as articulated in our heritage plan, are respected.

Let me give you but two examples – examples that directly concern provincial policy.

As you know, the Provincial Policy Statement, in addition to providing the strong statement that "built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved," states that development on adjacent lands to heritage property must demonstrate that heritage attributes will be conserved. Ottawa has chosen to limit the meaning of “adjacent” in all circumstances to “abutting”. So our heritage district, and all others where the boundaries of the district are roadways, are denied the protection intended by the PPS – all adjacent development is across the street from the district, which does not qualify as “abutting”. We note that Toronto has dealt with this issue effectively in its Official Plan by defining “adjacent” to include lands that are directly across from and near to a heritage property.

Second, Ottawa has applied to heritage plans a definition of “lot” emanating from the Planning Act that means that any existing lots that are bought by the same person automatically are joined as one lot. Many heritage plans recognize lot sizes and patterns as important parts of heritage character. For example, Rockcliffe Park’s heritage plan states: “New lots created through severance or by joining smaller lots together shall be consistent with the general lot sizes within the associated streetscape….” The definition that Ottawa has adopted wipes out this limitation on joining lots – thus undermining established lot patterns that are intended to be protected by several heritage plans in Ottawa.

What can be done to provide more assurance that the above quoted statements in your Heritage Toolkit have real force and meaning? That, for example, “The adoption of an HCD plan as part of the designation process ensures that the community’s heritage conservation objectives and stewardship will be respected during the decision-making process.”

What can be done to ensure that the provisions of policies and heritage plans that are prescriptive - using such words as “shall”, “shall not” “is not permitted” – are complied with when decisions are made? We are knowledgeable about the difference between policies and provisions that a decision-making body “shall have regard to” (weak) and those that it “shall be consistent with” (stronger). We understand that the Planning Act also uses “shall conform with”. Is there scope for amplifying the message that heritage plans set very important parameters for decision-making that cannot be put aside?

Thank you for your consideration of these observations and comments. Your help in these matters would be hugely appreciated.