By Susan Peterson
Reflecting concern about the protection of heritage districts in Ottawa, Julian Smith, architect, conservator, scholar and educator, who is internationally recognized for his contributions to heritage conservation, was invited to lead workshops with participants from seven community associations representing sixteen of Ottawa’s twenty heritage conservation districts. They were joined by representatives of Heritage Ottawa.
Among his findings, he noted that the cultural-heritage value of Ottawa’s heritage-conservation districts is being routinely compromised and eroded. This is related to the failure of city staff and city councillors to respect and straightforwardly apply the approved heritage plans for these districts, as well as the related directives set out in the Ontario Heritage Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.
Recommendations
To protect Ottawa’s heritage districts, a significant change in culture, attitudes, and practices is called for. The direct voice of Ottawa’s heritage communities, and the unique expertise they embody, must be given the principal role in interpreting their heritage plans, and advising city councillors on development applications or other proposed changes in their heritage districts.
City staff must see their role, not as one of negotiating and facilitating development applications, but as protecting and enhancing the heritage of Ottawa by supporting heritage communities.
1. The provisions of the approved guidelines or heritage plan for each Heritage Conservation District – straightforwardly understood – must be the basis on which any proposed changes are assessed and approved.
2. Staff reports and recommendations should have the approval of the community association’s heritage committee (however named) before going before any Subcommittee or Committee of Council. This should become standard practice.
3. If there is disagreement between the community association’s heritage committee and city staff, the community’s recommendation should be the one put before the Subcommittee or Committees of Council. Other opinions can be referenced, as at present. But it is important that City Council and its committees accept, modify, or reject the voice of the community, and justify any deviations if the community’s expertise is not accepted.
4. A member of each community’s heritage committee should sit as a voting member of the Built Heritage Sub-Committee when applications in their heritage district are considered.
5. At meetings of the Built Heritage Sub-Committee and Planning Committee, the community’s heritage committee should have the opportunity to present their case at the outset, as well as to respond after others have spoken.
6. Cultural Heritage Impact Statements (CHISs) are optional within the regulatory framework, and should be treated as such. If a CHIS is prepared and paid for by the proponent, the community should be given an opportunity to prepare its own CHIS.
7. Strong consideration should be given to making the Built Heritage Sub-Committee a full committee of Council, reporting directly to Council. The Built Heritage Sub-Committee could deal with heritage applications without concern that its recommendations will be overridden by the Planning Committee.
Workshop Participants: Centretown Citizens Community Association, Glebe Community Association, Lowertown Community Association, New Edinburgh Community Alliance, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association and Heritage Committee, Rothwell Heights Property Owners Association (for Briarcliffe), Action Sandy Hill, and Heritage Ottawa.
The full report is available at: heritageottawa.org/sites/default/files/smith_report.pdf