PHILIPSBURG – On Saturday, March 8th, the developers of West Vue were informed, via email, to stop all civil works, pending evaluation of ongoing excavation at the site in Cupecoy. The email followed from the meeting held with the developers on Friday, March 7th where the matter was discussed, outlining some of the concerns related to the issued building permit and the procedures for a civil works permit. Due to technical issues, the signed stop order was emailed on Tuesday, March 11th 2025, however, knowledge that it was being issued was communicated on Friday, 7 March 2025 and that an e-mail would be forthcoming. This stop order will be strictly enforced, with the assistance of law enforcement, should the need arise.
During last week’s press briefing, Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, and Infrastructure (VROMI) Patrice Gumbs stated that on February 9th 2024, a building permit (BP#203/2022) was published in the National Gazette of March 1st 2024 for a residential development on meetbrief 13/1968. Gumbs stated that he had informed the media that while he had met with the homeowners next to the development, he was still gathering information and was yet to meet with the developers and as such would be limiting his comments on the matter. The Minister was able to confirm that the issued permit pertains to West Vue, a proposed 18- story development, 3 subterranean levels, and 15 levels above ground, consisting of a condo hotel and commercial spaces. He further confirmed that the entry in the National Gazette only referenced one parcel of land, meetbrief number 13/1968 , for a residential development. The project in its entirety consists of an additional three parcels, meetbrieven 123/1971,161/1978, 034/1973. The incorrect classification of this development as ‘residential’ and the omission of the three other parcels does not reflect the full scope of the project and the nature of the development.
Gumbs stated that the lack of all (correct) information may have had an impact on the ability of concerned parties to object or query the approved permit as is their right by law. Recent case law has established that if a building permit is published late, affected parties may still file an objection or appeal within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the permit. Courts have ruled that the standard objection period does not strictly apply if late publication prevented timely filing. However, the objector must demonstrate that they submitted their objection or appeal as soon as reasonably possible after learning about the permit. If they wait too long after becoming aware of the construction, their objection may still be deemed inadmissible.
Following the issuance of a building permit and the start of ground activities, a legal procedure was started by affected persons against the developer regarding a civil matter and not the building permit itself. In court, parties reached a settlement agreement concerning an accessway. This accessway has to be restored by October 2025, and parties were told that they should enter into negotiations related to parking provisions.
As it relates to the development, the draft zoning law for the area indicates a maximum allowed height of 10 meters for all four parcels (meetbrieven). West Vue has a combined height of 50 meters. In reviewing the file, Gumbs noted that the advice from within the Ministry differed across departments. The proposed development, noting its height, should be approximately 27.5 meters from the boundary from at least one side of the building. West Vue has a distance of 3 meters from the boundary. The policy department advised against approval, while the permits department agreed to grant approval, citing common practices in using setbacks to minimize impact.
While this difference of interpretation is one worth noting, Article 22 of the National Ordinance, which contains regulations regarding construction and public housing, makes provisions for the granting of a conditional building permit or the refusal of a permit wholly or partially. It states that such action must always be accompanied by reasons and lists that such reasons can only be based on one or more of a set of identified circumstances. One such circumstance is “that the building plan is contrary to the zoning regulations of a development plan or the regulations associated with an approved subdivision plan in which the land involved is included” (Article 22 sub 7). An argument can be made that because the zoning plans are not legally binding, they may be challenged in court and, as such, may not be used as the sole reason for denial. In such a case, an additionally listed reason (article 22 sub 5) for denial states that if “the building or part thereof, due to its location or construction method, will disfigure the surroundings, be a nuisance, or pose a fire hazard to the surroundings”, then denial is possible. In this instance, too, how unsightly or a nuisance is defined may differ from one person to another. In this case, the policy department did offer clarity on this, stipulating that the height of the proposed building may be a nuisance for the significantly lower building in the west corner, and be perceived as ‘overshadowing’, thus a hinder and/or nuisance.
In such a case, the Minister exercises his personal bevoegdheid (authority) to approve or to deny, taking into consideration all the advice before him or her. As such, to approve or deny any permit is at the discretion of the Minister, as long as a legally sound reasoning and substantiation is provided. Considering that the former Minister Doran approved this permit, all relevant circumstances are considered, in the eyes of the law, to have been taken into account. Therefore, a strong legal basis must be found to revoke the granted permit, outside of all the technical issues that, in principle, would have been considered by the then Minister. Why such a strong basis is needed is because pulling back the permit, would most likely result in litigation and the need to motivate a new decision.
Gumbs noted that the long-term impact of decisions taken is becoming more apparent. He highlighted the increasingly clear disconnect between what the average resident was in need of and the decisions that were ultimately taken by his predecessors. While he acknowledges the economic impact of construction and the need for upmarket inventory, he notes that not one single unit of affordable housing was built or from a policy position supported. Limited drainage was made, no trenches were repaired, and erosion in hillsides increased. Moreover no policy on housing, no policy on land issuance, or a policy on proper use of land or zoning was finalized. Gumbs noted this referencing a question opposed by the Daily Herald related to overdevelopment and disenfranchisement.
“While I acknowledge that financial constraints have indeed limited Government’s ability to respond and take care of necessary infrastructure, private-public partnerships and conditions for works and permits are possible to alleviate the financial burden on government. Gumbs stated that by adding more to ailing infrastructure, without urgent interventions, is a recipe for disaster and an example of poor governance; the effects of which we are feeling each and every day.”
Gumbs acknowledged the unmistakable frustration and outlined solutions that the Ministry has been working on to improve the existing permit process. The first of these will be the notification of a request that will inform the public of requested permits. Though not legally necessary, it is a way in which concerned persons will be better informed and is actually a part of the permit process in other parts of the Kingdom. The Ministry is currently defining how best to share this information. Currently, permits are only made public via the National Gazette, after approval by the Minister. This will be complemented by a new Ministerial Decree that will expand the amount of information included in publication. Going forward, persons will know such things as the amount of floors in a development as well as the amount of units. More clarity will be given to whether a development is residential, commercial, or mixed use, a clear distinction of which doesn’t currently exist The basis of some of these changes, stem from recommendations made from as early as 2016, but never implemented.
“While I can continue to point out the ills made by my predecessors, I am now in the seat, I too will make mistakes, but these must be within reason, they must be acknowledged, and solutions, to ensure they don’t happen again, must be made”.
