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) .