PHILIPSBURG—St. Maarten Harbour Holding (SMH) lost its Administrative Justice LAR case against the Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning. Environment and Infrastructure VROMI regarding the permit issued for the Dock Maarten’s marina expansion in Great Bay.
The government-owned company has six weeks to appeal the October 24 ruling. It first filed the legal procedure on January 28 and added to the petition on February 26, after which the ministry reacted on April 28 and Dock Maarten as third interested party gave its input on August 9.
The case was heard on August 22. The port claimed that the project undermined its exclusive 30-year-concession to manage the harbour at a fee of 5.2 million guilders per year and infringed upon the related Master Plan.
On October 19, 2015 an injunction filed by SMH against the permit for a breakwater issued in July 2014 had been dismissed by the court.
In the most recent ruling the judge did recognise the plaintiff as an interested party when issuing the permit but saw no proof of an evident detrimental impact of the contested project on those interests including the economic aspects mentioned. That question must be answered in a regular civil case rather than a LAR-procedure.
Moreover, the Master Plan is just a plan, so there is no telling if the breakwater extension will indeed be a nuisance for surroundings in the future and the current situation must be the basis for decision-making. Possible environmental effects are also not among the legal reasons mentioned in article 22 of the Building and Housing Ordinance for a conditional permit or a partial/complete refusal.
SMH had also pointed out that there are two versions of a new Arcadis impact study required for the permit as the first one did not exclude effects on the marine environment, so an addition was made in the second one used in the request. Dock Maarten acknowledged the existence of two reports, but said the addition was in line with the content and did not diminish its value.
The judge did find the argument that the harbour company should have been consulted in the decision-making process “not without grounds,” especially since the VROMI-minister by letter of September 14, 2015 had promised to do so “before any lease rights, long lease rights, building permits or building exemptions are granted in the future by or with involvement of the ministry as far as they relate to the concession area.”
However, this alone is no reason annul the contested decision and SMH’s petition was declared unfounded.
