The building permit for the Phoenician condo building, signed by former VROMI Minister Egbert Doran on January 10, 2024 - a day before the parliamentary elections - has been annulled by the Court.
PHILIPSBURG--The Court of First Instance of St. Maarten has annulled a controversial building permit issued in early 2024, by former Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment VROMI Egbert Doran (National Alliance), ruling that the decision was procedurally flawed and inadequately substantiated. The judgment on Monday follows serious concerns raised by a resident group, including the allegation that the permit was granted as part of a so-called “farewell policy” by the outgoing Minister.
The case was brought by the Pride of Beacon Hill Homeowners Association (PBHA) in opposition to a permit granted to The Phoenician Private Fund Foundation. The Foundation intends to construct an eight-storey apartment building on Beacon Hill Road 16, a narrow strip of land on a peninsula in the Simpson Bay area.
The building permit, numbered BP#262/2021, was granted by outgoing VROMI Minister Doran the day before the January 11, 2024, Parliamentary Elections and published in the “National Gazette” on March 15, 2024. The Association filed its appeal shortly thereafter, arguing that the permit was issued without proper justification and in contravention of urban planning policies, suggesting it was part of an “exit policy” – a flurry of decision-making in the final days of the Minister’s term.
In a surprising development, government lawyer Richard Gibson Jr., representing the Ministry of VROMI, did not defend the permit in court. Instead, the Ministry aligned itself with the Association’s objections, acknowledging that the permit may have been granted contrary to existing policy and without adequately considering legal standards, including Article 22 of the Building and Housing Ordinance.
The proposed structure includes five two-bedroom apartments on the ground floor, ten one-bedroom apartments on each of the second through sixth floors, and three three-bedroom penthouses on the seventh floor. Each unit is designed with private rooftop access. The complex would rise to 23.4 metres (approximately 77 feet) and feature 71 car parking spaces and 5 motorcycle bays on two levels.
The building site is located on two parcels of land (cadastral numbers 111/1967 and 69/1956), which are held under long lease by the developer. In early 2024, the lease conditions were amended to allow for commercial use and a maximum height of 24 metres – changes approved by Doran through ministerial decree.
Notably, two internal policy memos from VROMI, dated September 2022 and May 2023, advised against permitting buildings of such height, warning that they would have a “significant impact” on the surroundings and harm the area’s residential quality.
The court found the former Minister of VROMI’s decision to ignore the ministry’s own internal policy advice in the final permit issuance “incomprehensible” and a breach of legal certainty.
During the final court hearing on May 19, 2025, the developer’s attorney, Dana Kweekel, unexpectedly introduced new legal arguments concerning the PBHA’s legal standing and property rights. Both PBHA and the Ministry objected, arguing they had no opportunity to respond. The court agreed, ruling that introducing new issues at such a late stage violated principles of due process. As a result, those arguments were excluded from the official case record.
Violation of parking standards
The claimant argued that the planned apartment complex would intensify existing traffic problems on the only access road to Beacon Hill. According to the resident, the area has long struggled with traffic bottlenecks and inadequate infrastructure. The concern was that the project would force residents and visitors to park along the already narrow roads, blocking access for emergency services.
The Ministry of VROMI acknowledged during the court hearing that the development would indeed increase traffic and parking demand in the area and admitted that this factor had not been properly assessed during the permit approval process. The lack of sufficient parking spaces within the project would push drivers into nearby residential streets, exacerbating congestion and reducing road accessibility.
The developer disagreed. Attorney Kweekel pointed to a site inspection report which described the road as accessible and in good condition. However, the court determined that the scale of the development – both residential and commercial – would likely overwhelm the current infrastructure and hinder the operations of emergency services.
A nearby paid public parking facility was deemed insufficient to mitigate this effect. As a result, the court concluded that the permit violated Article 22, sections 5 and 6, of the “Building Ordinance”, which require projects to avoid undue burden on local infrastructure.
Disruptive building height
The court also addressed whether the development would be visually disruptive or cause a nuisance to the neighbourhood. The building's proposed height of 23.4 metres far exceeds the limits set by the “Simpson Bay Development Plan”, which allows for a maximum of 9 to 12 metres in Beacon Hill. Residents complained that the structure would obstruct views and alter the residential character of the area.
Although the developer argued that the “Simpson Bay Development Plan” is not a legally binding development plan and had never been formally adopted as official policy, the court ruled otherwise. It found that VROMI had, since 2014, consistently used the draft zoning plan as a policy framework to evaluate new building proposals. The court classified this consistent use as “established policy” and concluded that the ministry was therefore obligated to apply the “Simpson Bay Development Plan” when evaluating the current permit.
Farewell policy
The disputed permit, initially requested in 2021, lay dormant for nearly three years before suddenly being approved shortly before a change in government. The claimants argued that the timing strongly suggested the permit was rushed through as part of last-minute policymaking by departing officials.
While the permit holder denied the existence of any such farewell policy, government representatives conceded during the hearing that the circumstances were indeed “remarkable” and that Article 22 of the “Building Ordinance” had not been properly considered in the decision-making process. Despite this, the court chose not to rule explicitly on whether farewell politics played a role, finding instead that the permit lacked sufficient legal grounding on several other counts.
In its ruling, the court found that the permit violated the principles of due care and proper motivation and did not comply with Article 22, sections 5 and 6, of the “Building Ordinance”. These provisions allow authorities to deny a permit if the construction would be detrimental to the neighbourhood due to design, location, or expected impact on traffic and parking.
Given that multiple grounds for denial applied in this case, the court concluded that the permit should not have been issued at all under the law’s strict framework.
During the hearing, Gibson Jr. requested the opportunity to re-evaluate the building permit and offer the developer a chance to submit a revised plan. The court granted this request, ordering the government to issue a new decision that takes into account the objections raised during the proceedings.
Specifically, VROMI must reassess whether the proposed building – especially in terms of height and visual impact – is disruptive to the surrounding area. This includes comparing the project to nearby structures and evaluating potential obstruction of views.
In addition to quashing the permit, the court ordered VROMI to reimburse the claimant’s legal costs, amounting to 2,450 Caribbean guilders. An additional Cg. 150 is to be paid as compensation for court filing fees.
