I've written one application for a backcountry hut and assisted with a second. Front Counter BC is the managing agency. From what I know of the process, the agency checks with other land agencies, First Nations etc. for impacts, conflicts etc. That would include biologists looking for impacts on wildlife, habitat, endangered species. Also important, is who is managing the facility. An abandoned facility would become a problem for the province and potentially costs for clean up and remediation.
Yes, it's somewhat onerous and people might see it as an infringement on their perceived right to conduct recreation on Crown land in the manner in which they deem themselves entitled. That might have worked in the Wild West. With today's pressures on land and resources, that's no longer an option.
When someone says about an illegal structure, "looks good", am I to take that in the narrow literal sense that it's pleasing to the eye? Or, do I take it that they condone the erection of illegal structures? (a) because they may conceivably use it, (b) f@ck the guvmint, they never did anything for me, (c) In a perfect world, everyone should be able to be free to do as they wish (e.g. blue skies, rainbows and love each other)?