Peterborough City Council has officially adopted a bylaw designating select buildings on 107 Park Street North, the site of the city’s former General Electric factory as being of heritage value. Excluded from this bylaw are buildings which were not assigned heritage value in the Heritage Impact Report put together by ERA Architects, the firm contracted by GE Vernova after they announced their intent to demolish a portion of the properties onsite. Also excluded are a series of buildings currently occupied by BWXT Nuclear Energy.

This decision, made at a February 23rd council meeting, marks the end of lengthydebate around these designations. The 107 Park St. N. site is notorious for its extremely high levels of contaminants, including carcinogenic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and beryllium. The latter of these was found on the playground at the neighbouring Prince of Wales elementary school in 2020, though the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) did not flag this as alarming, given the relatively low spread of these chemicals beyond the immediate surroundings of the GE Vernova site. BWXT’s own soil analysis found these levels have trended downward since 2020, falling under a reported detection limit in 2021.

It also found that beryllium levels at a park on Adeline Street off Patterson Street remained above that limit in 2025, however.

These findings weighed heavily over debates on the heritage designation of 107 Park Street North, as well as GE Vernova’s refusal to publicly address many years of occupational health hazard posed to former GE workers and surrounding residents through on-site chemical exposure. 

Councillors worried that a proposed demolition of GE buildings—extensively documented as containing high amounts of asbestos and other contaminants despite remedial efforts—could lead to their spread around the community. Throughout the designation process, council saw both an opportunity to preserve a site of such historical significance to Peterborough and place some guardrails on a highly contentious demolition process.

Last fall, the Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) sent a letter to council requesting the full designation of the property. At the time, council was considering the designation of only the buildings recommended in the ERA Architects report—those not mentioned as having heritage value would thus be eligible for demolition.

Both PACAC and city councillors like Town Ward’s Joy Lachica expressed concern over council’s adoption of the ERA Architects recommendations rather than PACAC’s. 

For Lachica’s wardmate Alex Bierk, speaking on the motion last Fall, council was “making it easier for General Electric to back away from having any liability with that site.” That same evening, Lachica herself would state her worry that council was failing to “put people and community over corporate approvals” by deferring to ERA Architects.

Opposite them, councillors like Otonabee Ward’s Lesley Parnell and Kevin Duguay argued that the heritage designation process was not to be wielded politically: GE Vernova’s application for a demolition permit was “something we’ve been waiting years and years and years to have some remediation,” in Parnell’s words, and the legacy of GE was simply “not what we're dealing with.”

The person in charge of overseeing GE Vernova’s forthcoming demolition application would be Peterborough’s Chief Building Official (CBO), a position currently filled by Jody Drumm following the retirement of the last CBO, Dean Findlay. The CBO’s role is to enforce the Ontario Building Code, and as such, their authority stems from the provincial government, not Peterborough City Council.

The last of the designation debate centered around the CBO’s role. Earlier in February, staff presented a report to staff in response to a motion from Bierk requesting that they create the outline of a HASP for GE Vernova to follow in their prospective demolitions at 107 Park.

Commissioner of Municipal Operation Ilmar Simonovskis instead presented council with a Health and Safety Approach (HASA) guideline report, arguing that HASPs were binding documents under Ontario law and thus beyond the purview of council.

After Bierk protested that this report did not meet the demands of his original motion, staff warned that the preparation of a HASP was a responsibility of the CBO: any attempt from council to set a guideline for the plan could be considered an infringement on the CBO’s independence and thus subject to litigation.

Crucially, Director of Legal Services Alan Barber told councillor Parnell “I wouldn't say that the debate or the motion itself is definitive evidence that council is interfering with the CBO.” The issue he took with it was that “somebody could conclude that council is seeking to influence the CBO.”

Still, this seemed enough for council to turn down two amendment motions from Bierk and Lachica, leaving all health and safety oversight on the 107 Park St. N. demolition up to the CBO and provincial government.

This takes us to the ratification of heritage designation bylaws for the site: The sole opponent of the motion to ratify the designation of the GE Vernova buildings recommended by ERA Architects, excluding those occupied by BWXT, was Coun. Alex Bierk. 

Further details on the demolition process await GE Vernova’s official presentation of their demolition application to the CBO.