WILLEMSTAD - A problem arose when the HNO project was moved from the Amstel site to Otrobanda. The site of the old Colon Shopping Center was bought by the government to build the hospital on it. However, the site was too small, and part of the hospital had to be built over the Hamelbergweg towards the old Sehos and also on the site of the old hospital.

This created a legal problem because the new hospital, in terms of its nature and size, could not be built in the area designated as “city center” in the Island Development Plan (EOP). The boundary of the “inner city” area ran across the Hamelbergweg. The Colon site was intended as an “urban residential area” and did not have did this problem. The solution which the then minister of VVRP had devised was to literally move the boundary of the protected inner-city area eastwards at the location where the hospital was to be built, so that the hospital could still be built in “urban residential area”. This case is about the legality of that changed plan, or in other words whether that change was possible. The case has started before the construction of the hospital but has only now come to an end.

In this case, the judge ruled that the appeal of Promo and others against the changed plan is well-founded and has annulled the amendment plan. In fact, this means that the change should never have taken place and means that the building permit that was granted to build the hospital has also come to a standstill. In other words, the building permit should never have been granted and the hospital should never have been built there. Promo and others do not have the ambition to proceed with the demolition of the hospital but wish that this statement will send a clear signal that 600 million-plus guilders of community money could have been spent much better. This statement is also important so that the modus operandi applied to this zoning change plan will not count as a blueprint for doing other unauthorized buildings in the city center. For example, in theory, it would be possible to build a tower next to the Penha building, using the same methodology. It is therefore justified that it was penalized by the judge.

However, the statement is also groundbreaking for completely different reasons. In the transition from 10-10-10, the EOP that previously applied as Island Ordinance of the Island Territory of Curacao was transferred as National Ordinance of Country Curacao. This was a mistake, as it had to apply an implementation regulation of the EROC and as such in Country Curacao as a National Decree containing general measures. By classifying the EOP as a national ordinance, the legal protection against the EOP was limited, and changing the EOP was also a long and tedious legislative process. This ruling makes it much quicker to change the EOP and provides all legal safeguards. So it is a win-win for developers and stakeholders, but also for the government that will be able to act much more decisively in adapting the EOP to today's needs. The EOP dates from 1995 and has remained virtually unchanged since then. This statement is therefore positive for Curacao and for the development that the community wants so badly and of which the non-realization of this had been wrongly put on the account of the EOP. The EOP is a “diamond in the rough” and an important step has been taken in polishing it.