The Evolution of Cultural Heritage Landscapes as a Means of Protecting Heritage Resources Heritage conservation itself is not a new planning issue. This issue has traditionally been framed primarily as involving built form. The purpose of this paper is to explore the evolution of Cultural Heritage Landscapes ( CHLs ) in the context of a variety of development approvals, with a particular focus on a recent decision by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change ( MOECC ) relating to an application by wpd White Pines Incorporated ( wpd ) for a Renewable Energy Approval ( REA ). In that decision (16 July 2015, REA 2344-9R6RWR), MOECC refused two of the proposed wind turbines to “ensure that impacts to identified cultural resources and protected properties are mitigated sufficiently and appropriately”. Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) The OHA does not specifically identify CHLs as a specific heritage resource, although a property can be designated under section 29 of the Act for reasons of cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria for determining such value or interest is set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06: (1) design or physical value (2) historical or associative value, or (3) contextual value. It is this notion of contextual value – defining the character of an area, being linked to its surroundings or recognized as a landmark - that is particularly key to recognizing CHLs and in evaluating the impact of development proposals. PPS 2014 CHLs are a relatively new and evolving concept in the planning lexicon. The Provincial Policy Statement 2014 provides the most recent iteration of provincial thinking on CHLs: 2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved . 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved . 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved . 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 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 Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act ; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site).
Page 2 The definition of a CHL in the PPS 2014 is fairly broad and was in fact expanded from the 2005 version to extend to a wider range of properties. The effect of this should be to increase its utility as a tool of heritage protection. Planning Cases Historical value or interest is generally signified by listing a property on an inventory of heritage property or by way of a designating by-law. This is however not the only signifier; in a number of decisions the Ontario Municipal Board ( OMB ) has recognized the existence/value of heritage resources, including CHLs, that have not been designated as such. Canadian Niagara Hotels (12 April 2005, PL040295) involved a severance application for a site along the Niagara River Parkway. In that case, Members Pendergast and Rossi held that the fact that a property is not designated under the OHA is not determinative of its heritage value: “ a site is designated in recognition of its heritage value. The heritage value does not flow from the designation ”. In keeping with this finding, the Board accepted that the Parkway in its entirety could be considered as a CHL. Referencing the Venice and Appleton Charters, the Members viewed the application in the context of both its site and larger setting, finding that the application was not appropriate as it would have an adverse impact on the larger cultural heritage landscape in which it was located. In appeals of Ottawa By-law 2014-24 by Ted Lawrence (18 November 2014, PL140212), Member Denhez similarly held that a lack of a heritage designation for a property is in no way determinative of a property’s heritage value or interest, particularly in the context of a broader understanding of built and landscape heritage values in the 2014 PPS. The David Dunlop Observatory case ( Corsica Developments Inc , 1 May 2013, PL101254) is perhaps the highest profile planning case to involve a CHL. The boundary of that CHL was established by the Conservation Review Board to include a wide range of built form and natural features of historical, contextual and physical value. Residential development was permitted outside of that boundary. The OMB accepted the evidence of Michael McLelland that CHLs are complex and evolve organically. In that case the OMB found that that CHL was a “dynamic and evolving entity, which anticipates that change will occur. ” What happens when the CHL is more static, intended to protect a particular historical period of time? CHLs and REAs This issue of the evolution of a landscape as being of cultural heritage value and the ways in which it should be protected has most recently been tested in the context of the wpd application for a wind turbine project in Prince Edward County ( County ). Statutory Background Enacted under the Environmental Protection Act ( EPA ), Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals, sets out the criteria to be considered in any application for an REA. Part IV of the Regulation, the Application Process, specifically addresses issues of heritage. Section 19 addresses the authorizations required where a project will result in the alteration or demolition of a protected property. This is a straightforward regulation of circumstance.
Page 3 What is not so straightforward are situations where a renewable energy project may impact a property that is not protected under the OHA or an abutting property protected by the OHA. This latter circumstance, which is regulated by section 23 of O. Reg 359/09, was of particular importance for the wpd application. Heritage assessment 23. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (5), a person who proposes to engage in a renewable energy project shall ensure that a heritage assessment is conducted, consisting of the following steps: 1. Conduct an investigation, including historical research and visual inspection, to determine whether, i. there is potential for the presence of a heritage resource at the project location on any part of the project location that is not on a property described in Column 1 of the Table to section 19, and ii. any properties described in Column 1 of the Table to section 19 abut the parcel of land on which the project location is situated. 2. If the determination under subparagraph 1 i is that there is potential for the presence of a heritage resource, confirm the presence or absence of a heritage resource by applying the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) made under the Ontario Heritage Act . 3. Evaluate the impact of engaging in the renewable energy project on the heritage attributes of any heritage resources at the project location and on any abutting properties described in subparagraph 1 ii and provide recommendations for measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact if, i. the determination under subparagraph 1 ii is that there are abutting properties as described in that subparagraph, or ii. the presence of a heritage resource at the project location is confirmed under paragraph 2. O. Reg. 195/12, s. 15 (1). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person determines that, (a) there is low potential for the presence of a heritage resource at the project location after considering the potential, which consideration must include completion of the document entitled, “REA Checklist: Consideration of Potential for Heritage Resources”, as amended from time to time, available from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport; and (b) there are no properties described in Column 1 of the Table to section 19 that abut the parcel of land on which the project location is situated. O. Reg. 195/12, s. 15 (1). (2.1) A person who is subject to subsection (1) shall submit a heritage assessment report to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, consisting of, (a) a summary of the qualifications and experience of the persons who conducted the assessment and prepared the report; (b) a summary of the process followed in each applicable step of the heritage assessment and the conclusions reached at the end of each step; (c) a description of any documents used to conduct the assessment;
Recommend
More recommend
