Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Pemberton council considering RV park on designated farmland

Being part of the Agriculture Land Reserve, multiple agencies would have to sign off on using the land for non-farm use
Pemberton
Much of the land in the Pemberton Valley has high potential for agriculture use, making the decision to use it for non-farm use difficult.

An application received through the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) was presented to Village of Pemberton (VOP) mayor and council on Tuesday, Feb. 15, looking to bring a new RV park to the village.

If approved, the proposed park will be located at 1641 Airport Road—the same location as the village’s former Adventure Ranch—and will consist of 91 individual sites operating under two seasonal models. From mid-April until October, the park will cater to the summer’s short-term tourist market, whereas in the winter months the park’s camping sites will be available for more long-term stays.

The issue, however, is that the park’s proposed location currently falls within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), a province-wide land-use zone that promotes and preserves agricultural land in B.C. This means for the RV park to get the go-ahead to be used for non-farm use, VOP mayor and council would have to recommend the ALC approve the application for the land to be used for non-agricultural purposes.

According to Pemberton planner Colin Brown, who presented the report to council, many local agencies including the Pemberton Valley Dyking District, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and Pemberton and Valley Chamber of Commerce have all already shown support for advancing with the application to the ALC.

However, when the plan was brought to the residents living in adjacent neighbourhoods, some concerns were raised about the project.

“With the ALC process, there is no requirement for public notice, but staff always encourage the applicants to communicate with the immediate neighbours so they are aware of a pending application,” said Brown. “So with that, the neighbours contacted staff and submitted a letter opposing the application, citing a number of concerns over density and impact to the area.”

While some of the councillors were in support of moving forward with plans for the RV park, the main concerns brought up by community members were also shared by Councillors Leah Noble and Amica Antonelli.

According to Coun. Antonelli, much of the land in the Pemberton Valley is considered Class 1 farmland, which means it has the highest potential for agriculture. But with the park most likely requiring soil to be removed and replaced by filler, there will be no returning the land to farm use in the future, she said.

“Preserving agricultural land is very, very important. In B.C., only one per cent of the province is Class 1 farmland, so while we might look around and think, ‘oh, we’ve got so much,’ we actually have very little. And I think the legacy of the ALR is protecting the best of our farmland and that is super important to me, and to a lot of people in our community,” said Antonelli.

“I think our role should be to encourage agriculture on agricultural lands. And for the most part, that means not encouraging non-farm uses. Everybody who owns land in the valley has potential to make a lot of money by implementing some kind of non-farm use. And what I think we should be encouraging is using the land in the form that it’s in, supporting agriculture, supporting preservation of the soil, and leaving this long-term legacy for our community.”

On the other hand, said Coun. Ted Craddock, “we don’t have authority … to impose upon a person buying a piece of land that they have to farm it,” which could lead to the property sitting there unused for many years.

“So that’s a concern I have and like you, I think I’d like to hear from the ALC and see what their vision is. And then when we talk to the public through the Official Community Plan bylaw and the ALC approves it, I think that would be a great opportunity to talk to the community about those concerns,” he said.

In the end, council opted to send the application to the ALC with the noted concerns prior to moving ahead with the proposal.