GEPR Energy Canada Inc., the owner of the historic General Electric factory complex at 107 Park Street North in downtown Peterborough, has objected to the City of Peterborough’s November 2025 notice of intention to designate eight of the complex’s buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act — despite a report commissioned by the company itself that recognized the heritage value of the eight buildings.
kawarthaNOW has obtained a copy of a letter dated November 25 from Toronto law firm Aird & Berlis LLP to the city clerk’s office on behalf of the company, which is a subsidiary of GE Vernova, an energy equipment manufacturing and services company formed from the merger and subsequent spin-off of General Electric’s energy businesses in 2024.
The letter from Aird & Berlis LLP describes four objections to the city’s notice of intention which, on November 6, was served to GE Vernova as the property owner and also published as a public notice in the Peterborough Examiner. Three of the objections relate to the “improper” wording and content of the notice, with another objection calling a proposed designation “unnecessary.”
The notice of intention to designate followed a decision by Peterborough city council on November 4 to allow GE Vernova to demolish a large number of vacant buildings at the factory complex, with the exception of eight buildings that would receive heritage designation.
The heritage value of buildings 2, 2A, 8A, 21, 24A, 26, 28, and 30 was described in a 154-page heritage impact assessment (HIA) report prepared by ERA Architects Inc. for GEPR Energy Canada Inc. Those buildings include two currently in use by GE Vernova, four currently in use by BWXT (an independent company that was originally part of GE Vernova’s nuclear energy division), and two unoccupied buildings with heritage value that will be retained and mothballed pending potential future uses.
On October 6, city council meeting as general committee voted down a staff recommendation that recommended hiring a consultant to conduct a peer review of the HIA report, with some councillors arguing that a peer review of the report was unnecessary and others arguing that a peer review would ensure the city had considered the matter in a fair and objective way.
Council confirmed that general committee decision at its October 14 meeting, despite hearing concerns from nine public delegations about the potential environmental and public safety impacts from allowing demolition of all other buildings in the complex’s centre block that haven’t been used since 2018. The 26 buildings to be demolished represent around 84,500 square metres (910,000 square feet) of the 104,000 square metre (1.1 million square feet) site.
The proposed demolition is controversial because of known contamination of the industrial site with toxic hazardous substances over the past 125 years and the impact of a demolition on the safety of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.
On November 3, city council meeting as general committee rejected a recommendation from the city’s Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) that facades along Albert Street be retained for buildings 8, 34, 16A, 16, and 22 in their current location and be included in the designation, along with building 13 (the power house). Council voted to maintain its original October 14 decision to only designate the eight buildings described in the HIA report.
The following day, city council confirmed the November 3 decision and city staff were directed to issue a notice of intention to designate to GE Vernova by November 7 — the 60-day deadline under the Ontario Heritage Act given that GE Vernova sent its notice of intention for demolition to the city on September 8.
The city’s notice of intention, which was served to GE Vernova as the property owner and published as a public notice in the Peterborough Examiner on November 6, indicates the city plans to pass a by-law on January 19 that designates buildings 2, 2A, 8A, 21, 24A, 26, 28, and 30 as described and depicted in the HIA report, and provides the “reasons for designation” as stated below.
The former Canadian General Electric plant at 107 Park Street North has strong cultural heritage value through its associations with Peterborough’s industrial and labour history. Established in 1891 as the Canadian works of the Edison General Electric Company and later operating as Canadian General Electric, the complex played a central role in the city’s emergence as a national centre of electrical manufacturing and innovation. The plant produced generators, motors, transformers, and lighting equipment, later expanding to locomotives and street railways. It contributed significantly to Canada’s war efforts in both World Wars, manufacturing military components. The site also reflects the social evolution of the industrial workforce, particularly through the recruitment of women during wartime production. The plant was in continuous operation for 127 years until its closure in 2018.
Architecturally, the complex demonstrates the evolution of industrial design from the late Victorian and Edwardian periods to postwar modernism. Early brick buildings such as 2, 2A, 8A and 30 exhibit fine craftsmanship, decorative brickwork, and large fenestration typical of early factory architecture, while later additions such as buildings 21, 24A, 26 and 28 illustrate functional modern industrial construction.
The former large GE manufacturing complex is an integral aspect of the neighbourhood. The plant’s location, form, and enduring presence have shaped the surrounding residential and transportation patterns and remain integral to understanding Peterborough’s industrial development. The property stands as a landmark and enduring symbol of the city’s identity as “The Electric City” and of its contribution to Canada’s technological and economic growth.
The letter of objection from Aird & Berlis LLP takes exception to the wording of the city’s notice because the “reasons for designation” describes the property as a “landmark” and, despite the notice specifying the actual buildings to be designated, claims the city is designating the entire property.
“The proposed designation will apply to the entirety of the Park Street site as a ‘landmark’, contrary to the clear intention and direction of Peterborough city council which stated that it had ‘no interest’ in pursuing designation of the lands save for a few specific buildings,” writes Aird & Berlis LLP partner Eileen P. K. Costello.
She adds that the notice “includes generalized statements about the history of the property and architecture, failing to include clarity and direction as to the specific heritage attributes that are of cultural heritage value” and that “the proposed designation relies, in part, on incomplete or inaccurate information with respect to certain architects that are attributed with having contributed to the Park Street site.”
Aside from the wording of the notice, Costello writes that the proposed designation “is unnecessary in the context of the site plan application filed concurrently with the notice of intention to demolish and which affords the City of Peterborough ample jurisdiction to appropriately manage the interim use of the Park Street site.”
“The site plan application which accompanied the notice of intent to demolish will facilitate the interim and long-term strategy for the property. In (the company’s) view, this can and should occur without the necessity for a heritage designation on the property.”
Again, despite the notice specifying the specific buildings to be designated, Costello writes that notice’s wording does not reflect the decision of city council and instead designates the entire property as a “landmark.”
“The practical consequence of the designation of the entirety of the Park Street Site as a ‘landmark’ is that any application which follows — whether it includes a proposed alteration of existing buildings or construction of new buildings — will be required to go through an additional process at the city for the consideration of any impacts on the cultural heritage value of the entire property.”
“We further note that the term ‘landmark’ is not defined in the Ontario Heritage Act making it impossible to asses(s) whether changes would affect the ‘landmark’, particularly in the context of the proposed demolition of buildings on the property.”
“At the very least, we respectfully submit that it is incumbent on city staff to work with (the company) to determine whether any designation could proceed in a manner consistent with the clear direction of city council so as to ensure the majority of the Park Street site and the current economic activities located there are not unduly encumbered.”
Costello also writes the notice relies on “incomplete/uncertain information” in a city staff report from October 6 that states the factory complex features works from Ontario architects including Walter Strickland, George Martel Miller, George Gouinlock, and John McIntosh Lyle, when the HIA report that GEPR Energy Canada Inc. commissioned found no specific buildings could be attributed to those architects.
In addition, the letter argues the proposed heritage designation is “unnecessary” given that the interim site plan developed by GEPR Energy Canada Inc. would “address many of the concerns heard from members of the public and city council.”
“The interim site plan will allow the city to secure many of the recommendations in the HIA to address the cultural heritage value of the Park Street site, including opportunities for interpretation areas and commemoration specifically identified as mitigation strategies,” Costello writes. “Again, this work can occur under the direction of city staff and be secured through conditions of site plan approval and a site plan agreement, registered on title to the lands. A heritage designation of all or any part of the Park Street site is not required for the city to benefit from these opportunities through the site plan process.”
The letter concludes by stating that GEPR Energy Canada Inc. “looks forward to engaging with City of Peterborough staff to resolve its objection to the notice of intent (to designate) and to advance discussions with respect to its site plan application in the time afforded by the (Ontario Heritage Act) prior to city council having to issue a final decision on this matter.”
kawarthaNOW reached out to the City of Peterborough on Monday (January 12) and to Aird & Berlis LLP on Tuesday for clarification on whether there has been any communication between the two parties since the November 25 letter. The City of Peterborough did not provide a response prior to publication, while a spokesperson for Aird & Berlis LLP said the firm was not able to comment at this time.
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City of Peterborough has 90 days after receiving a notice of objection to decide whether to uphold the notice of intention to designate by passing a by-law or to withdraw the notice.
With respect to GEPR Energy Canada Inc.’s notice of objection, that means the city would need to make a decision by February 23. According to the city’s notice of intention to designate, the by-law is scheduled to be passed at the next city council meeting on Monday (January 19).
If the city decides to proceed and pass a by-law to designate the buildings, GEPR Energy Canada Inc. would then have 30 days to appeal the by-law to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The original version of this story has been updated with details of the recommendation from the Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) for additional heritage designation.
