Powell River Regional District officials are facing a lawsuit launched by six plaintiffs who live close to the Savary Island barge site.
The claim, which also names the province of British Columbia as a defendant, seeks to have the barge operation closed or, alternatively, to have the barge operation conform to the site management plan as outlined in the licence of occupation signed by the regional district and the province.
The province issued a licence of occupation to the regional district in 2005 permitting it to use and occupy the barge landing site, which is located on the beach at the intersection of Malaspina Promenade and Sherman Walk.
The plaintiffs allege the barge service has been operated in breach of the licence. They also allege that vehicle traffic “before, during and after the operation of the barge service has caused, and continues to cause, increased noise, pollution and dust around the barge landing site and along Malaspina Promenade and Sherman Walk.”
The traffic, combined with the permanent storage of cars, boats and other materials at the site, “has a serious negative impact” on the plaintiffs and their properties, according to the claim.
The plaintiffs also allege the operation of the barge service is inconsistent with Savary’s OCP (official community plan).
A statement of defence has not yet been filed.
Bud Graham, president of the Association of the Savary Island Committee (ASIC) has written a letter to the lawyer who is representing the regional district in the case, stating a number of reasons why the barge service is vital for the island.
Graham told the Peak the organization is concerned because the barge service is an essential service for many people on Savary. “We’re all getting older and some people are handicapped,” he said.
Graham said if the barge service was not available, his sister-in-law, for example, would no longer be able to use her property. “That’s pretty significant,” he said. “It’s not that we are unsympathetic to the residents around the barge site about trying to make things work better for them, but in the first level issue of an interim and permanent injunction against the operation, there’s got to be a better solution. We would like to be part of whatever discussion of what that better solution is.”
In his letter, Graham pointed out ASIC’s interest is in the potentially significant adverse impact of the case on the entire island, including property-owning families, businesses and visitors. “Disruption to the barge service would limit the ability of island-wide property owners to effectively access, operate, maintain, improve, enjoy or sell their properties,” he wrote.
Bruce MacDonald, president of the Savary Island Property Owners’ Association (SIPOA), sent a written statement to the Peak. He pointed out the barge site had not always been located at its current site and that the eastern end of Savary Island bears the brunt of the whole island’s vehicle traffic, the vast majority of which is destined for the middle or western end of the island, where the majority of ASIC members are property owners.
“There is no doubt in our minds that if another neighbourhood was affected to a similar degree, they would be reacting in a similar manner to our neighbourhood,” MacDonald wrote. “In fact, recently the island’s bottle depot was moved because of its negative effect on its nearby neighbourhood.
“We understand the island’s need for barge services of some sort and understand that there are certain items that can be considered ‘essential services.’ However, if a barge operation is to exist in a location that is so disruptive to a neighbourhood, consideration should be given to minimize its impact on the nearby property owners. Barging off-season would do just that and there is very little opposition to this barge activity. Other than transportation of fuels, food supplies and other necessary commercial services and activities, barging is not ‘essential’ in the summer months. Of course, moving the barge site (as alluded to in the island’s OCP) to an area less densely populated and closer to actual island destinations may provide the opportunity for fewer restrictions to be in place.”
Regional district officials will not comment on the issue as it is before the courts.
