Residents concerned about how their rural identity is represented in regional planning have renewed criticism of the consultation process used to develop the North Saanich Official Community Plan (OCP). In a letter published locally, two principals of the consulting firm involved in the project defended their engagement work — but a resident response says the process emphasised urban planning objectives and failed to ask residents what they actually wanted for their community.
Consultants defend approach; resident says consultation missed the point
The letter from Robert Barrs and Patrick Oystryk of Modus Planning, Design & Engagement outlines a series of meetings and touchpoints from the OCP work carried out between 2021 and early 2023. Modus described engagement with multiple groups and at various locations, according to the published defence.
But the responding writer, whose submission summarises first-hand observations of the Modus outreach, argues the consultations did not ask residents what they wanted — namely, to maintain the rural character of North Saanich. Instead, the writer says the engagement moved forward with an urban planning objective, proposing denser housing and several concentrated growth areas.
"The Modus planning and consultation efforts did not ask residents what they wanted for their community, which was to maintain the rural character of the district."
What was proposed during the consultation
The respondent identifies four proposed growth nodes or hubs that were presented during the consultation phase. As described in the correspondence, these included apartment, condominium and townhouse forms as part of concentrated village or commercial nodes. The proposed areas were:
- Area 1 — a village hub at McTavish;
- Area 2 — a marine/waterfront node at Tsehum Harbour;
- Residential intensification in the southeast quadrant;
- A smaller commercial village in Deep Cove; plus a nook commercial node near Ardmore Golf Course.
According to the letter writer, the proposals for Areas 1 and 2 also involved moving the Urban Containment Boundary (UCB), a line used in the Capital Regional District (CRD) Regional Growth Strategy to distinguish urban and rural land uses. North Saanich lies outside the UCB and is identified in regional policy as a rural area noted for its agricultural and forest lands.
| Proposed Area | Concept |
|---|---|
| Area 1 — McTavish | Village hub with higher housing density |
| Area 2 — Tsehum Harbour | Marine/waterfront node |
| Southeast quadrant | Residential intensification |
| Deep Cove | Smaller commercial village |
| Ardmore Golf Course area | Small commercial "nook" |
Residents pushed back; notes on maps not initially summarised
The writer of the response says the majority of residents rejected the growth-node ideas and left critical notes on planning maps during engagement events. They allege those notes, which expressed opposition to the hubs, were not initially collated and summarised by the consultants.
Beyond procedural criticism, the exchange prompted debate about definitions. The Modus team, the resident account says, argued there are multiple ways to define "rural" and offered a comparative justification citing village concepts used in some European contexts. The respondent countered that North Saanich is not Europe and pointed to nearby Sidney as the local service centre.
Local stakes and regional context
Although the correspondence concerns North Saanich specifically, the dispute has broader resonance across the Saanich Peninsula and the CRD. Discussions about where to allow higher-density housing and whether to adjust urban containment lines are central to how the region balances housing targets, agricultural protection and forest preservation. For neighbouring communities, proposals to shift the UCB or concentrate growth in traditionally rural municipalities raise questions about infrastructure, service access, transportation and the preservation of open space.
For residents who prioritise agricultural land and forested areas as the "lungs" of the region, even the appearance of a shift toward more urban forms can feel like a breach of local expectations. Conversely, proponents of concentrated growth argue that targeted intensification can help meet housing needs while protecting other rural lands.
At this stage, the published exchange is a reminder that consultation is not only a sequence of meetings and materials but also an exercise in defining terms and outcomes. Where engagement is perceived to favour certain planning paradigms, it can undermine trust and complicate the path to consensus.
Municipalities and the CRD continue to grapple with those trade-offs. For residents of the Saanich Peninsula, the debate underlines how regional strategies and local visions must align if long-term planning is to command broad community support.
