Last month the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 had been issued. The new PPS, replacing the current Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, will take effect on October 20. [1]
As for the cultural heritage policies in section 4.6 of the new PPS, they are little changed from the two draft PPS versions previously circulated for comment on the Environmental Registry. While major concerns from the heritage sector about the narrowed focus of the policies have not been addressed [2], there are two welcome differences in the final version.
First, the “old” adjacency wording is back. For purposes of policy 4.6.3 municipalities will continue to have the ability to define “adjacent” in their Official Plans, explicitly allowing for broader definitions than simply contiguous.
Second, the draft new policy in 4.6.4 about encouraging “proactive strategies for the identification of properties for evaluation under the OHA” has been changed. The policy, which left many scratching their heads, now reads:
4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement:
a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and
b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
The revised policy makes more sense and clearly encourages a broader suite of conservation strategies than those for “the identification of properties for evaluation under the OHA.”
Note too that the revised policy re-introduces the term ”significant” for cultural heritage resources. [3] The term, and the part of the definition of the term applying to cultural heritage, had been dropped in previous drafts.
Question: How might the new policy be put to work?
Back in May of this year we looked at how the Provincial Policy Statement can be seen as setting “minimum standards.”
This interpretation is based on the clear wording of the statement itself, wording which also appears in the new PPS: “How to Read the Provincial Planning Statement”
Policies Represent Minimum Standards
The policies of the Provincial Planning Statement represent minimum standards.
Within the framework of the provincial policy-led planning system, planning authorities and decision-makers may go beyond these minimum standards to address matters of importance to a specific community, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the Provincial Planning Statement. [4]
The May article had applied this reading of the PPS to the adjacency policy in 2.6.3 (now 4.6.3) — and argued that a municipality’s Official Plan policies could “go beyond” the proposed narrower definition of adjacency (as strictly contiguous) and take in properties across the street or within a moderate radius. Since many municipalities, like Ottawa, already had such policies, they could continue to use and enforce them. In other words, such policies would be “consistent with” the new PPS and not in conflict with it. [5]
The article concluded with a caution:
In setting different, higher standards than the minimum set out in the PPS, municipalities will have to be mindful of the proviso that these don’t conflict with other policies of the PPS. They can’t go crazy and adopt adjacency policies that purport to apply kilometres around a designated property, for example. Policies will need to be clear, reasonable and always furthering the intent or objective of the underlying PPS policy.
So if this interpretation of the PPS is correct, how might it apply to other cultural heritage policies in the PPS? And how might the new policy 4.6.4.b — explicitly encouraging the development of “proactive strategies” for conserving significant cultural heritage resources — be enlisted for this purpose?
Currently, the flagship policy for cultural heritage in Ontario says:
2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
In the PPS, 2024 this is gone, replaced with:
4.6.1 Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved.
And, of course, the newbie:
4.6.4.b Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement … proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
Now “protected heritage property” is defined as property designated individually or as part of a Heritage Conservation District under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act, property with archaeological resources protected under Part VI, and a few add-ons. Clearly, this definition is much narrower than those for “significant built heritage resources” and “significant cultural heritage landscapes.” [6] In other words, the class of properties captured by “protected heritage properties” is much smaller than the class of properties captured by the combined “significant built heritage resources” and “significant cultural heritage landscapes.” [7]
Significant cultural heritage property excluded from the ambit of the new policy falls into three categories:
- listed (non-designated) properties on heritage registers under section 27 of the OHA;
- properties that have been evaluated and meet the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria but are not listed or designated; and
- properties that have not been evaluated but would meet the criteria if they were.
But what if the new policy’s application to protected/designated property is simply seen as a “minimum standard”? A standard that a municipality may “go beyond” to “address matters of importance” to it?
Consider: “Matters of importance” = matters of significance, including significant cultural heritage resources.
Over the last decades most Ontario municipalities with heritage programs have put in place a more-or-less consistent suite of cultural heritage policies in their Official Plans. Closely following the standards and terminology set by the Provincial Policy Statement and the Ontario Heritage Act as they evolved over time, these policies have matured and become more comprehensive. Using the current language, OP heritage policies as a starting point routinely require the conservation of cultural heritage resources including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. [8]
These policies often apply not just to designated properties, but to listed (non-designated) properties on the municipal heritage register as well — and, in some municipalities, even to properties on non-statutory inventories. But a common denominator is that heritage properties meet the recognized standard for significance: the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06.
With the new PPS, 2024 now retreating from the previous standard and mandating the conservation of only protected/designated property, many of the current OP heritage policies in the province represent a higher standard that “goes beyond” the PPS minimum.
And, according to this analysis, that should be just fine. In fact, cannot such policies be seen as “proactive strategies” for conserving significant cultural heritage resources, as the new PPS encourages?
Let’s hope Ontario municipalities — and the Ontario Land Tribunal — are paying attention.
****************************************************************************************************************
The Bungalow, 1888, Windermere, Ontario Photo: Dan Schneider
A self-congratulatory note here… if my count is correct this article is the 125th blog post on OHA+M!
Woo-hoo. 🎉 🥂👏 Begun in 2015, OHA+M is now in its 10th year.
And there’s so much more to say.
Notes
Note 1: See https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-planning-statement-2024.
Note 2: See the 2023 and 2024 Environmental Registry (ERO) postings here: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-6813 and https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-8462. For concerns with the proposed cultural heritage policies see the April 2023 OHA+M article at https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resources-centre/blog/new-pps-and-protected-heritage-property, and those expressed in the “comments received” in the two ERO postings.
Note 3: As defined in the PPS, 2024:
Significant means:
…
e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by theProvince under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Note that “significant” has also been added to policy 4.6.2 where it qualifies “archaeological resources.”
Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been conserved.
As to the return of the word “significant” in the final cultural heritage policies, it’s worth noting that section 2 of the Planning Act says:
The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,
…
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest (emphasis added)
The meaning of “significant” in the PPS as it applies to cultural heritage resources is explored in the June 2018 OHA+M article at https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resources-centre/blog/cultural-heritage-landscapes-part-two-or-matter-significance.
Note 4: Page 4 of the PPS, 2024.
Note 5: Section 26 of the Planning Act requires that existing Official Plans be revised as required to ensure that they are “consistent with” the PPS. As noted, unlike what had been proposed, the final PPS, 2024 definition of “adjacent” includes the “or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan” option, so the point is moot in this respect.
Note 6: As defined in the PPS, 2024:
Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any
manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community.
Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association.
Note 7: As noted in the April 2023 OHA+M article (see Note 2 above):
[T]o put this in numeric terms, the new policy would apply to only the roughly 33,000 properties designated under Parts IV and V — versus the many tens of thousands of additional heritage places that do, or would, qualify under the current “significant” yardstick. These include listed (non-designated) properties under section 27 of the OHA, properties that have been evaluated and meet the criteria but are not listed or designated, and properties that have not been evaluated but would meet the criteria if they were.
Note 8: See, for example, policy 6.3.1 in the Town of Caledon’s new draft OP at https://pub-caledon.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=37787 and policy 7.1.2.1 in the Town of Niagara-on-the Lake’s OP accessible at https://www.notl.com/business-development/planning-services/official-plan-review