By ETHAN WILDING
There has been a great deal of misinformation circulating about the Baker Beach shoreline proposal, and I feel it is important to clarify the facts so the community can better understand what was proposed and why.
Baker Beach has seen a noticeable increase in shoreline erosion in recent years, driven by stronger king tides and winter storms linked to climate change. This erosion is reshaping the shoreline, affecting wildlife habitat, public access and nearby properties. The impacts have already been significant enough that the Capital Region District reinforced the two main beach access points from Quarry Road and Baker Road with rock walls to maintain safe access.
To help mitigate further erosion, a group of neighbouring property owners chose to work collaboratively to explore a shared approach to shoreline protection. The goal was to develop a cohesive solution that reflects how coastal systems function as continuous, interconnected environments rather than as isolated, parcel-by-parcel segments. As an alternative to using concrete or hard armouring, we proposed a nature-based approach using combinations of native plantings, gravel, sand, logs, stones and slope modifications to dissipate wave energy while maintaining ecological function and public access. Additional native plantings upslope were included to help manage rainwater and reduce soil saturation. This nature-based approach is commonly referred to as “green shoring.”
We received approval to proceed from Fisheries and Oceans Canada in July 2024, and by October of that year, Islands Trust staff advised the province that they had no objections to our development permit application. What this meant was that the Islands Trust was satisfied that we were in full compliance with all of the bylaws.
Around the same time, however, a petition opposing the project began circulating on social media. The petition contained a number of misleading claims, including assertions that the proposal would restrict public access, damage fish habitat, bypass First Nations consultation and privatize the beach. While these claims are untrue, it nonetheless gained the attention of the elected trustees.
It was then disturbing to learn that, despite having no objections to our plan in October 2024, Islands Trust staff reversed their position the following month. In November 2024 they informed the province that they would be submitting a new recommendation, without explaining the reason for the change or giving us an opportunity to address any concerns that may have prompted the reconsideration. How can a delegated staff decision be reversed without explanation? Which rulebook were they following?
No updated response followed. By April 2025 we had to take legal action to force the Islands Trust to provide us with a decision. Again, without any meaningful communication with us about their reversal, they chose to deny our application, 17 months after we initially applied for the development permit. We had been told at the outset that this process should take weeks, not years.
We appealed the decision, which was heard at a Local Trust Committee meeting in July 2025. The reasons given for rejecting our appeal were troubling. One trustee characterized the project as “too big,” despite professional evidence to the contrary, and was unable to define what an appropriate size would be. Another trustee, who appeared to acknowledge interference with the application process, claimed inadequate First Nations consultation. Consultation with First Nations is the responsibility of the province, not the Local Trust Committee. In any case, we had initiated such consultations with local nations approximately a year before submitting our application.
In short, the proposal was not rejected due to any demonstrated deficiencies or dangers, but rather on the basis of ever-shifting and arbitrary criteria that were introduced during the meeting itself. This is not sound or transparent governance.
Too often, citizens lack the financial resources to challenge such decisions, even when the process has been mishandled. In our case, we spent over $100,000 complying with regulations and retaining qualified environmental professionals to design a shoreline protection project grounded in green shoring principles, an approach that Islands Trust staff themselves encouraged and found no issue with until after the misleading petition gained the attention of the trustees. With no other recourse available, we sought a judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and are now awaiting the court’s decision.
Protecting our island requires action, not inaction. Doing nothing risks continued loss of shoreline stability, ecological function, and both public and private assets. The Islands Trust has promoted green shoring as the preferred approach to shoreline protection, which is exactly what we proposed, at our own expense and seeking compliance with the bylaws. Yet, it was rejected.
That is not sound governance, it is the opposite. It turns regulatory approvals into arbitrary processes that discourage compliance, and makes it harder for residents to contribute to the environmental protection of the island. This case makes it clear that we need better leadership if we have any hope of tackling important climate change issues in the future.
For information about the proposal, visit bakerbeach.ca.