Audit Chamber: Simpson Bay tree protest shows why building permit decisions need more transparency

GREAT BAY--The General Audit Chamber says the recent protest in Simpson Bay over the felling of a grape tree reflects broader concerns raised in its 2025 audit of St. Maarten’s building permit process, particularly the need for transparency, written justification and stronger safeguards in development decisions.

In comments shared publicly via its Facebook page, the Audit Chamber said residents deserve transparency, written reasons for decisions and development that protects long-term resilience. The Audit Chamber linked the incident to findings in its performance audit on the building permit process, which found that St. Maarten’s permit system operates under an outdated and fragmented legal framework.

The audit noted that the Building and Housing Ordinance of 1935 remains the primary legal basis for permits, while key development policies such as the Beach Policy, Hillside Policy and Parking Policy are not legally binding.

According to the audit, this creates risks of inconsistent enforcement, selective application, legal uncertainty and greater reliance on political discretion in land-use decisions. The Chamber warned that, in the absence of an enforceable island-wide zoning plan, VROMI staff must interpret old policies case by case.

The audit also found that policies are not applied uniformly and may vary depending on political leadership. In some cases, the department may depart from policy, but such departures are not guided by objective criteria or recorded in a formal process. The Chamber said this increases the risk of arbitrary decisions and reduces legal certainty.

The Audit Chamber also stressed the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders in the building permit process. It specifically noted the need to consult entities such as GEBE for electricity capacity, the Nature Foundation for environmental impacts, and other organizations involved in heritage preservation, community safety and environmental protection.

That finding is directly relevant to the Simpson Bay tree incident, where residents questioned whether environmental and community concerns were properly considered before the tree was removed.

The audit further warned that building against the direction of the Hillside or Beach Policy can increase the likelihood of erosion, flooding, landslides and hurricane-related damage. These risks, the Chamber said, do not only affect individual projects, but can also impact surrounding communities, public infrastructure and the wider environment.

A central concern in the report is the lack of written justification when government deviates from expert or departmental advice. The Chamber found that while the Minister of VROMI has final authority over permit decisions, there is no legal obligation to document or explain deviations from internal or expert advice. The Chamber said this weakens transparency, traceability and accountability.

The audit recommended that the Minister be legally required to provide written justification for every deviation from departmental or expert advice. These justifications, the Chamber said, should be recorded to improve accountability and legal defensibility.

The Audit Chamber also recommended that VROMI develop and implement written Standard Operating Procedures for all permit steps, including intake, consultation, evaluation, routing of advice, approvals and deviations. It further recommended automation of the permit workflow so that advice, decisions and file movement are time-stamped, traceable and accessible to applicants.

The Chamber said the permitting system must be modernized to support development that is efficient, transparent and resilient against political interference or undue influence.

The Simpson Bay tree incident has now become a practical example of the concerns raised in the audit. For the Audit Chamber, the issue is not only the tree itself, but whether development decisions are being made with proper documentation, environmental consideration, stakeholder input and public confidence.

The Chamber’s message is that St. Maarten can continue to develop, but development approvals must be guided by modern laws, clear procedures, written explanations and safeguards that protect long-term resilience.

‍