PETERBOROUGH, Ont. — GE Vernova’s Canadian subsidiary has formally objected to the City of Peterborough’s decision to protect part of the historic General Electric factory complex in downtown Peterborough, a move that has ignited fresh controversy over the future of the industrial site.

GEPR Energy Canada Inc., which owns the former General Electric manufacturing campus at 107 Park Street North, filed a letter of objection on November 25 through Toronto law firm Aird & Berlis LLP, challenging the city’s November 2025 notice of intention to designate eight buildings within the complex under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objection comes despite the fact that GEPR itself commissioned a heritage impact assessment (HIA) that acknowledged the historic value of the buildings now targeted for protection.

Company Objects to Designation Despite Recognizing Heritage Value

The notice of intention, issued by the City of Peterborough on November 6 and published publicly in the Peterborough Examiner, was meant to preserve eight buildings within the sprawling industrial site. However, GE Vernova has raised four specific objections to the notice, arguing that the city’s wording and legal justification are flawed.

Three of the objections focus on the content and wording of the notice, which the company claims are “improper.” The fourth objection argues that the proposed designation is “unnecessary.”

The company’s stance has raised questions among heritage advocates and community members, who point out that the buildings in question were identified as historically significant in a 154-page HIA report prepared by ERA Architects Inc. for GEPR Energy Canada.

The Heritage Buildings at the Center of the Dispute

The eight buildings named in the HIA report are:

• Buildings 2 and 2A

• Building 8A

• Building 21

• Building 24A

• Building 26

• Building 28

• Building 30

The report notes that two of these buildings are still in use by GE Vernova, while four are occupied by BWXT, a separate company that was once part of GE’s nuclear energy division. The remaining two buildings are currently vacant but have been identified as having heritage value and are slated to be preserved and mothballed for potential future use.

Council’s Decision: Demolition Approved, Heritage Protection Limited

The designation notice follows a controversial decision by Peterborough city council on November 4, which approved GE Vernova’s request to demolish a large number of vacant buildings in the complex’s central block.

The decision allowed the demolition of 26 buildings, leaving only the eight identified structures for heritage protection. Together, the buildings approved for demolition represent roughly 84,500 square metres (910,000 square feet) of the site’s total 104,000 square metres (1.1 million square feet).

The move sparked public backlash and renewed scrutiny of the environmental and safety risks associated with demolishing a century-old industrial site that has been linked to toxic contamination over the last 125 years.

Debate Over Peer Review and Environmental Concerns

In early October, the city council faced a heated debate over whether to commission a peer review of the HIA report. Council staff had recommended hiring an independent consultant to assess the report’s findings, but councillors were divided.

Some argued that a peer review would ensure the city’s decisions were fair and objective, while others said it was unnecessary and would delay the redevelopment process.

On October 6, council’s general committee voted against the peer review recommendation. That decision was later confirmed on October 14, despite public opposition.

During the October 14 meeting, nine members of the public delivered delegations expressing concern about the environmental and public safety implications of demolishing the central block buildings. Residents argued that removing these structures could disturb decades of industrial contamination and endanger nearby neighbourhoods.

Toxic Legacy: The Risks of Demolition

The industrial site has a long history of contamination, including hazardous substances used in manufacturing over the last 125 years. Residents and community groups have warned that demolition could release toxins into the air, soil, and groundwater, posing a risk to local residents.

The city has acknowledged the environmental issues but has also emphasized that GE Vernova is required to follow provincial and federal regulations governing industrial demolition and site remediation.

Nevertheless, critics argue that the demolition plan does not adequately address the scale of the contamination, and that the decision to proceed without a full peer review undermines public confidence in the process.

PACAC’s Recommendations Rejected

Another point of contention arose on November 3, when the city’s Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) urged council to preserve certain building facades along Albert Street.

PACAC recommended that facades for buildings 8, 34, 16A, 16, and 22, along with the power house (building 13), be retained in their current locations and included in the heritage designation.

Council rejected that recommendation and reaffirmed its original plan to only designate the eight buildings identified in the HIA report.

A Divided Community and Uncertain Future

The dispute has left the future of the former GE complex uncertain. Heritage advocates argue that the buildings are a key part of Peterborough’s industrial legacy and should be preserved in full. Others, including city officials and developers, say demolition is necessary to make way for redevelopment and to address the site’s long-standing vacancy and maintenance costs.

GE Vernova’s objection to the designation notice signals that the company may continue to challenge the city’s decision, potentially leading to a legal battle or further negotiations.

As the dispute continues, residents and stakeholders are watching closely, concerned that the city’s decisions could shape the future of the site for decades to come.