Gumbs confirms Setai permits dating back to 2023 remain unresolved

GREAT BAY--Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure (VROMI) Patrice Gumbs has confirmed that permit applications connected to The Setai development, formerly Villa Levant, dating from 2023, 2024 and 2025 remain under evaluation, while acknowledging that delays in government permitting processes can create potential legal and financial liabilities. The Minister said environmental concerns involving protected coral species remain the principal obstacle to completing the permitting process, despite several years of correspondence, technical reviews and meetings with the developer.

Responding to questions during Friday's continuation of the 2027 national budget debate, Gumbs explained that the Ministry has been working with technical departments and external advisors to evaluate the proposed development. He maintained that the outstanding applications are linked to concerns about the possible impact of the project on a coral reef in the surrounding bay, which he described as one of the healthiest on St. Maarten.

The Minister said the coral species in question enjoys legal protection and that government must ensure development activities do not cause damage that could expose the country to liability. According to Gumbs, the Ministry and its external legal advisors have been unable to determine whether the mitigation measures proposed by the developer would adequately protect the marine environment.

Minister Outlines Environmental Concerns

Gumbs explained that the environmental assessment submitted by the developer in October 2025 underwent independent expert review, which the Ministry considered insufficient to support favorable permit decisions. He identified shortcomings involving mitigation measures, baseline environmental information and the treatment of protected species.

According to the Minister, advice from the Nature Foundation and the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment resulted in a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment meeting international standards. The Ministry subsequently communicated its concerns and requirements to the developer.

The Minister maintained that environmental protection must remain an important consideration in the permitting process, even where a development represents a significant investment for the country. However, he also acknowledged the economic importance of The Setai and said government had sought to balance development priorities with its environmental responsibilities.

"The scale of the Setai investment is exactly why the ministry has handled this file carefully," Gumbs stated, explaining that VROMI considered it important to clarify the government's position publicly.

Meetings and Correspondence Dating Back to 2025

Gumbs provided Parliament with a chronology of the Ministry's dealings with the developer, beginning with formal meetings held in February and April 2025. Those discussions addressed outstanding permits involving drainage, hindrance and beach works, and the Minister confirmed that minutes were maintained.

He also disclosed that excavation permits were issued in April 2025, demonstrating that certain components of the development had received government approval during the period under discussion.

Following the October 2025 submission of the environmental assessment, the Ministry undertook its review and identified what it considered outstanding environmental requirements. Gumbs said he formally communicated these concerns to the developer in April 2026, outlining the additional information and assessments considered necessary.

Further discussions and correspondence continued during 2026, including a meeting with representatives of The Setai in July.

The Minister said that in September 2026, VROMI informed the developer in writing that it was moving toward formal decisions based on the information then available. He indicated that the applications could not be favorably considered in their current form.

Gumbs explained that the law provides for applications to be refused when an applicant does not supply information required for proper assessment. He nevertheless indicated that the Ministry was working toward bringing the matter to a formal conclusion.

Questions About Separate Permits and Legal Deadlines

Parliament also sought clarification on whether concerns involving one permit application were preventing decisions on other applications associated with the development. The Minister responded that all pending permits were connected to concerns about potential impacts on the protected species.

However, he did not identify the specific statutory provisions permitting decisions on separate applications to be withheld because of issues associated with another application. Instead, he reiterated that the Ministry had maintained communication with the developer and would not depart from its environmental protection obligations.

Gumbs was also asked to provide a complete overview of the outstanding applications, their submission dates and the applicable legal decision-making deadlines.

He confirmed that applications dating from 2023, 2024 and 2025 remained under evaluation and stated that the standard statutory response period for a permit application is four weeks under legislation dating from 1935.

However, the Minister qualified that explanation by noting that actual evaluation periods can vary depending on the complexity of applications and the need for corrections or additional information.

He did not provide an application-by-application calculation showing whether the applicable statutory deadlines had been exceeded or by how long.

Minister Acknowledges Potential Legal and Financial Risks

The Minister was further questioned about whether prolonged delays in issuing permit decisions could expose government to legal or financial consequences.

Gumbs acknowledged that delays in permitting processes, regardless of the scale of the development, can create such risks.

"As with all permits, large or small, delays in permitting risk legal and, by extension, financial liabilities," he stated.

The Minister did not concede that government had acted unlawfully in its handling of The Setai applications or that any specific liability had arisen. His acknowledgment was presented as a general risk associated with administrative delays.

Questions were also raised about whether The Setai and the Indigo development had initiated legal proceedings against government concerning the handling of their permits.

Gumbs confirmed the involvement of legal teams and the exchange of legal correspondence, but said he had not been informed of the initiation of court proceedings concerning the applications.

He also indicated that the Ministry was still awaiting a response from The Setai to its September 2026 correspondence.

Gumbs told Parliament that VROMI had processed two information requests under public information legislation and had provided documentation in response. He also confirmed that the Council of Ministers had been kept informed of developments surrounding the project.

The Minister maintained that government had actively engaged the developer and pursued the necessary reviews rather than allowing the applications to remain unattended.

‍

‍