ACO Port Hope asked heritage-related questions to Port Hope’s Municipal Electoral Candidates. Responses are posted with permission and are presented in alphabetical order.
Also see:
Part 1
The Municipality of Port Hope is a well-respected heritage town with over 200 designated properties and two existing Heritage Conservation Districts. Moreover, the rural landscapes embracing Lakeshore Rood to the west and the Ganaraska River to the north are remarkable cultural heritage sites that reflect the interaction of a natural environment featuring lake or river views, rich farmland and environmentally important ravines, marshes and forested lands with historically significant farmsteads, barns and landmarks such as the Hole in the Wall.
Q1: What strategies would you suggest to further ensure that Port Hope’s remarkable heritage structures and landscapes are protected, conserved and restored in the face of ongoing growth and development?
Todd Attridge: I believe heritage is not an obstacle to growth; it is one of Port Hope’s greatest economic, cultural and community assets. Lakeshore Road is a rural cultural landscape worthy of conservation, while the Waterfront and Riverwalk Master Plan calls for protecting the Ganaraska corridor’s cultural, natural and built heritage. As Mayor, I will support a heritage strategy for Council’s consideration that launches a formal Lakeshore Road Cultural Heritage Landscape study; strengthens heritage-impact requirements and design standards; and advances the Riverwalk plan with heritage protection built in. I will also champion practical financial incentives for restoration and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, including restoring upper-floor housing in downtown buildings and partnerships that build local heritage-trades skills.
Angela Grogan: Port Hope’s heritage is one of our greatest assets, but protection cannot begin after a development proposal is already on the table. I would support stronger use of heritage impact assessments, conservation district guidelines and early consultation with Heritage Port Hope and residents before major decisions are made. We also need to look beyond individual buildings and protect cultural landscapes, including farmland, ravines, mature trees, views and historic rural features. Growth is necessary, but it should complement the character that makes Port Hope distinctive. I would also support incentives and partnerships that help owners maintain and restore heritage properties, because preservation works best when expectations are clear and property owners have practical support. My approach would be simple: identify what must be protected, plan before development occurs, enforce our standards consistently, and make heritage conservation part of economic development and tourism rather than treating it as an obstacle to growth.
Olena Hankivsky: Port Hope’s heritage is one of our greatest assets. We need to be clear about what requires protection before any decisions are contemplated and have the right leadership in place to know how to fight against any encroachments on our Heritage Conservation Districts. I am opposed to Special Economic Zones and will fight for exclusion of the Cultural Landscape of Lakeshore Road east of Wesleyville Road to Hole in the Wall and from 401 to Lake Ontario. One way to ensure we have more control in the face of growth and to shape any new Official Plan is to secure planning autonomy for Port Hope, separate from Northumberland County, something I have been advocating for directly to the province. We should also move forward quickly with a heritage designation for the Hole in the Wall as a distinctive historic landmark and fight against any proposed Bell Tower being located there. Wesleyville Village must be restored to its full potential as a landmark place that brings history to life. This requires leadership with a proven track record in attracting significant sums of external funding. The Municipality needs to put in place effective community engagement, such as listening circles, to hear from residents, the ACO, conservation authorities and Indigenous nations. My commitment to natural and heritage community is also demonstrated by my advocacy for the rights of nature and Indigenous-led stewardship. I brought the innovative idea of legal personhood of Rice Lake and Ganaraska River to Chief Taynor of Alderville who has taken the lead on this project, presenting it to the United Nations on Earth Day in 2025. This is the first initiative of its kind in Ontario. I would like to explore whether Heritage Conservation Districts in Port Hope could be recognized as a subject of law, drawing on legal precedents in environmental personhood movement and thus providing additional ways to protect their inherent worth and value against encroachment.
Ian West: Port Hope’s historic legacy defines our local character, and safeguarding these assets remains essential alongside ongoing municipal expansion. I advocate establishing transparent heritage standards, initiating timely dialogue with landholders and builders, and introducing viable incentives to promote conserving and repurposing designated properties before neglect sets in. Protecting surrounding countryside is equally vital. Future construction must be thoughtfully designed around farmsteads, ecological areas, river corridors, and key historic landscapes. Historic conservation can coexist seamlessly with progress. Although Port Hope requires additional housing, commercial opportunities, and municipal services, new projects must continually honour our distinct architectural legacy. Crucially, our municipality should adopt proactive strategies instead of reacting only when vulnerable structures face threat. By collaborating closely with community members, heritage groups, property owners, and developers, we can preserve Port Hope’s unique sense of place while pursuing sustainable expansion. Expanding our community must never compromise our cultural heritage.
We often hear the phrase “demolition by neglect.” It refers to the practice of permitting a property to fall into such a state of disrepair that restoration becomes untenable and demolition of the buildings on the site the only option. It is a strategy often used by developers to allow them to justify the demolition of a heritage building. Despite the adoption of a stronger Property Standards by-law, the Old Hospital at 65 Ward Street is still showing clear signs of demolition by neglect.
Q2: What further steps could the Municipality take to protect vacant heritage buildings such as the Old Hospital from demolition by neglect?
Todd Attridge: I don’t believe demolition by neglect can be allowed to become a strategy for getting around heritage protection. Port Hope already requires vacant heritage properties to be secured and protected from fire, weather and neglect, but enforcement remains complaint based. As Mayor, I will bring forward a proposal for Council to establish a Vacant Building Registry that registers long-term vacant buildings. Buildings would be subject to four exterior municipal inspections per year and require the owner to enter the property at least every 14 days and keep a log. I will also support restoration and adaptive-reuse incentives for owners genuinely working to save these buildings, creating a fair balance between helping people who are investing in heritage and holding accountable those who allow irreplaceable buildings to deteriorate.
Angela Grogan: The Municipality has already strengthened its Property Standards By-law. The next test is enforcement. For vacant designated buildings such as the Old Hospital, I would require regular inspections, documented maintenance plans, firm compliance timelines and clear public reporting on outstanding orders. Owners should be required to keep buildings secure, weather-tight and structurally protected so deterioration is not allowed to become the argument for demolition. Where orders are ignored, the Municipality should use the enforcement tools available to it, including undertaking necessary work where legally permitted and recovering costs. For significant heritage properties, I would also want staff and the heritage committee involved early in determining a realistic conservation and reuse plan. We cannot say we value heritage while watching an important building deteriorate year after year. Accountability must apply to both the property owner and the Municipality responsible for enforcing its by-laws.
Olena Hankivsky: The Municipality must move from reacting to deterioration to preventing it. For vacant designated buildings such as the Old Hospital, I would support a vacant heritage property registry, mandatory maintenance and conservation plans, regular documented inspections, and firm timelines for correcting unsafe roofs, drainage, masonry, windows and security. Where owners fail to comply, the Municipality should use escalating fines, orders to remedy, municipal work carried out at the owner’s expense, and recovery of costs through the tax roll. We should also require financial security sufficient to fund emergency stabilization and seek court enforcement where necessary. Enforcement should be paired with heritage grants, tax incentives, conservation agreements and assistance in finding viable adaptive reuses and responsible partners. For 65 Ward Street, Council should require an independent condition assessment, a public stabilization plan with measurable milestones and regular progress reporting. Heritage ownership carries responsibilities, and prolonged neglect cannot become a pathway to demolition.
Ian West: Our local administration must adopt forward-thinking strategies rather than just reacting once historic architecture faces irreversible ruin. To safeguard unoccupied heritage assets, I advocate routine assessments, defining strict timelines for structural repairs, and applying rigorous enforcement when site managers neglect ongoing upkeep. Town officials should also consider utilizing protective care agreements, offering financial aid for restoration projects, and fostering alliances with skilled developers or non-profit groups dedicated to adaptive reuse. When dealing with prominent historical sites, property owners should be legally required to submit comprehensive plans for securing and stabilizing their structures. Preserving local history must extend past formal paperwork; it demands active responsibility and sustained oversight. Identifying viable, modern uses for these structures allows us to celebrate our local identity while bringing vacant sites back into active civic life. Protecting our architectural legacy requires timely intervention long before decay becomes unmanageable.
The Centre Pier is a huge block of precious waterfront land – bigger than downtown Port Hope. It could be the focus of Port Hope’s future downtown growth, accommodating parklands, private and public development and a unique urban waterfront experience. Yet, little direction seems to have been given to PHAI as to the Pier’s possible future.
Q3A: What is your vision for the Central Pier? What uses or activities do you visualize there?
Q3B: Should the Municipality give stronger guidance to PHAI in order to ensure that Port Hope’s vision for the Pier is realized?
Todd Attridge: 3a) I believe the Centre Pier must be treated first as a public waterfront asset, not simply as vacant land available for development. Port Hope already has a community-developed Waterfront and Riverwalk Master Plan that envisions substantial parkland, public plazas, continuous waterfront access, event space and carefully scaled public and commercial uses. That vision also has real constraints. Remediation of the Centre Pier is still being completed, and future uses must respond to residual contamination, flood risk, environmental approvals and servicing requirements. As Mayor, I will work with Council to implement the Master Plan rather than start over: protect generous public access to the water, create spaces for markets, festivals and recreation, and explore compatible cafés, restaurants, shops, civic uses and a marina where technically and financially viable.
3b) The Waterfront and Riverwalk Master Plan sets the long-term direction for the Centre Pier, while recognizing that a detailed plan must follow remediation, further technical studies, and infrastructure funding. As Mayor, I will work with Council to ensure that the plan becomes the Municipality’s clear reference point in discussions with CNL. Restoration decisions made today must not unnecessarily close off the public spaces, waterfront access and compatible future uses Port Hope has planned for tomorrow. Our current Strategic Plan already calls for partnering with CNL on Centre Pier restoration to understand opportunities and restrictions. I believe we need to make that partnership purposeful by remediating safely, understanding the constraints, and protecting as many future options as reasonably possible.
Angela Grogan: 3a) My vision is for the Centre Pier to remain first and foremost a public waterfront asset. I see accessible parkland, walking and cycling connections, places to sit and enjoy Lake Ontario, public gathering and event space, and interpretation of Port Hope’s industrial, Indigenous and waterfront history. I would also be open to carefully planned commercial or tourism uses that bring people to the waterfront and support our downtown, provided public access is protected and the community benefits. This is too important a piece of land for decisions to be made piecemeal. I would support a transparent, community-led waterfront plan that connects the Centre Pier with the harbour, beaches, trails and downtown. The goal should be a waterfront that is environmentally responsible, economically useful, accessible to all ages and abilities, and unmistakably Port Hope.
3b) Yes. PHAI’s responsibility is remediation, but the Municipality must clearly communicate what Port Hope expects the site to become afterward. I would want Council to provide clear direction on final grading, drainage, public access, landscaping, infrastructure and future uses before restoration decisions limit our options. That guidance should be developed openly with residents, technical experts and waterfront stakeholders. The Municipality should also insist on regular public reporting so residents understand what is being remediated, what is being restored and what decisions remain within municipal control. We must respect PHAI’s technical and safety responsibilities while recognizing that the long-term waterfront belongs to this community. Port Hope should not simply inherit whatever remains after remediation. We should define the destination now and work with PHAI to ensure its restoration work supports that vision.
Olena Hankivsky: 3a) My vision is for the Centre Pier to become Port Hope’s signature public waterfront destination, guided by the community-approved Waterfront and Riverwalk Master Plan. Its foundation should be continuous public parkland, accessible trails, shoreline lookouts, naturalized areas, and strong walking and cycling connections to the harbour, beaches, Riverwalk and downtown. I envision flexible spaces for festivals, markets, performances, public art, Indigenous interpretation, children’s play, fishing, quiet recreation and year-round gathering, supported by washrooms, shade, seating and safe water access. Pop up cafés, marine services, cultural facilities or small-scale mixed uses could animate the site and help fund improvements, but public access, ecological restoration, climate resilience and lake views must come first. My vision is to also continue to consult with the public throughout any future development of the Pier.
3b) The Municipality, and the office of the Mayor, has given the PHAI clear, timely direction so remediation, grading and infrastructure preserve these future uses rather than constrain them. I have already put cleanup standards, municipal infrastructure impacts and resident concerns directly on the agenda with AECL, CNL, CNSC, government and industry. Implementation should be phased, transparent and shaped through continued community consultation.
Ian West: 3b) Yes. I believe the Municipality should provide clear direction and expectations to PHAI so that the community’s vision for the Centre Pier remains at the centre of the process. PHAI has an important role in transforming the Pier, but this is a significant Port Hope asset, and residents should have confidence that decisions are aligned with the Municipality’s long-term priorities. That means establishing clear goals around public access, recreation, economic opportunities, environmental considerations and responsible development, while maintaining regular communication with residents. I would also want transparency around timelines, costs, responsibilities and long-term maintenance. We should work with PHAI, not against them, but the Municipality must provide strong leadership and ensure the final outcome reflects what is best for Port Hope and its residents.
Part 2
Please type either “Agree” or “Disagree” after each of the following 5 statements. A comment of up to 25 words may also be added in the space provided.
1: Preserving trees in Port Hope continues to be a challenge. Yet, our natural heritage, our parks, ravines and urban tree canopy, are major components of our heritage image as a community. Port Hope deserves a much stronger tree protection by-law.
Todd Attridge: Agree. I believe Port Hope’s tree canopy is part of our heritage and deserves stronger protection. Our current Tree Protection By-law is largely tied to development applications under the Planning Act; I will support bringing Council a stronger, more comprehensive approach that better protects significant trees and the landscapes that help define Port Hope’s character.
Angela Grogan: Agree. Trees are infrastructure as well as heritage. We need stronger protection, realistic replacement requirements and enforcement that preserves mature canopy wherever reasonably possible.
Olena Hankivsky: Agree. I brought forward a motion (July 2026) to recognize the value of trees and to strengthen the protection of the tree canopy in Port Hope.
Ian West: Agree.
2: While the single family home remains the gold standard for many people, new development within the urban core should be higher density, more accessible, more affordable, as long as it conforms to heritage standards.
Todd Attridge: Agree. I believe we can add new buildings and more housing to Port Hope’s downtown while preserving the heritage character that makes it special. I support clear heritage design standards so new development and additions respect the materials, architectural rhythm, streetscape and defining heritage features of the historic core while allowing our downtown to grow and provide more accessible and affordable housing.
Angela Grogan: Agree. I support gentle, compatible density that adds affordable and accessible housing without overwhelming established neighbourhoods or compromising our heritage character.
Olena Hankivsky: Agree. Work underway: affordable units 60 Henderson Street, 138 Ontario street, plus exploring affordable housing on Municipality owned lands such as 41 Young Street.
Ian West: Agree.
3: Council has approved the creation of tiny homes and other additional residential units to increase urban density and gain housing stock. Such units should be in keeping with their existing neighbourhoods, particularly in our Designated Heritage Districts.
Todd Attridge: Agree. I believe additional residential units and tiny homes are an important part of expanding housing choice, but good growth must respect its surroundings. In Heritage Conservation Districts, I support clear design standards so new housing complements the defining heritage features and streetscape without restricting growth.
Angela Grogan: Agree. Additional units can expand housing choices, but their scale, placement and design should respect neighbourhood character, especially within Heritage Conservation Districts.
Olena Hankivsky: Agree. However, I am on record opposing ARU heights that exceed the primary residence to ensure respect for heritage, neighbourhood scale and privacy.
Ian West: Agree.
4: The new nuclear generating station may bring massive changes to our western waterfront area. Council should proactively work to protect the natural and cultural heritage of Wesleyville Village and Lakeshore Road.
Todd Attridge: Agree. I believe Port Hope must protect the natural and cultural heritage of Wesleyville Village and Lakeshore Road as any new nuclear project moves forward. As Mayor, I will work with Council to make heritage and environmental protection a clear priority in our planning, negotiations with OPG, and participation in provincial and federal processes.
Angela Grogan: Agree. Wesleyville and Lakeshore Road require proactive protection now, before major development pressures arrive. Heritage, natural landscapes and community history must be planned together.
Olena Hankivsky: Agree. Using the growth-readiness funding already secured, Port Hope must lead studies and negotiate binding protections and conservation investment for Wesleyville, Lakeshore Road, farmland and habitats.
Ian West: Agree. Absolutely. We must proactively protect Wesleyville and Lakeshore Road’s natural and cultural heritage while planning responsibly for future growth and development.
5: There is a strong movement to deregulate the planning approvals process, to permit builders to build more, faster. But Port Hope is a unique heritage community. While we should try to make the approvals process faster and simpler, we should not sacrifice our commitment to heritage protection and good planning in order to improve builders’ expediency.
Todd Attridge: Agree. I believe Port Hope can make planning approvals faster and simpler without weakening the standards that protect our heritage and shape good development. I support removing unnecessary delays and duplication, while keeping strong heritage review and sound planning requirements where they protect the character and heritage interests of Port Hope.
Angela Grogan: Agree. We should make approvals clearer and more efficient, but speed cannot replace sound planning, public accountability, environmental protection or responsible heritage conservation.
Olena Hankivsky: Agree. We can streamline approvals, which are often mired in red tape, without weakening heritage, consultation or environmental safeguards.
Ian West: Agree. We should streamline approvals and eliminate unnecessary delays, but faster development must not come at the expense of Port Hope’s heritage, character or responsible planning.
Also see: