Our firm’s Planning and Building department recently recorded a substantial achievement in favour of the Ofek Urban Renewal entrepreneur, in a proceeding wherein the Appeals Committee absolutely rejected 5 united appeals submitted against the decision of the Bat Yam Local Building and Planning Committee Sub-Committee, according to which the permit application submitted by the company was approved under condition.

The application was submitted in relation the land on Hahistadrut Street in the city of Bat Yam, on which there is currently an L shaped 4 floor terraced building located at the outskirts of the Veterans Neighbourhood, which has characteristic low build housing, to the west of which is saturated construction. As part of the permit application, demolition of the existing building was requested according to TAMA 38 and the establishment of 4 new buildings of 7-7.5 floors each, that include 104 residential units above a two-floor underground parking basement.

Several appeals were submitted by owners of bordering or nearby land, with an array of arguments, including that the requested construction is of grand scope and will therefore be prolonged and will injure quality of life, that the buildings are incompatible with the surrounding character and nature of the neighbourhood, that scenery, light and air will be blocked, and the construction will impede on infrastructures, traffic, etc. Additional claim said that the permit application is incompatible with the applicable plans and there is no planning justification for the requested facilitations.

On 26.6.2024 the Appeals Committee gave its unified decision in relation to all the appeals. The Appeals Committee rejected all the appeals and all the claims argued therein. The Appeals Committee determined, that injury to quality of life as a result of nuisances derived from performing construction does not constitute cause to deny the permit application. The Appeals Committee rejected the claims concerning incompatibility of the construction to the surroundings, as the building is constructed on the outskirts of the neighborhood adjacent to the saturated construction in the south and west and already has 4 floors and is not a low build.  The Appeals Committee determined that claims concerning the impeding of traffic were argued without any basis to contradict the local committee’s standing on the subject, and in any event the application presents significant improvement to the current existing situation wherein the building has no parking places whatsoever. 

The Appeals Committee also rejected the claims of blocked views and diminished value, in the absence of any relevance to the building permit procedure, and from the concept that the appellants have no built-in right to the scenery and to preserving the planning situation in an environment of urban renewal. 

The Appeals Committee also rejected the claim of incompatibility with the applicable plans or local committee policy, and the claims relating to approval of the facilitation. 

The Appeals Committee determined that in the existing situation, there are six separate buildings constructed according to a building permit, and that TAMA 38 permits the reconstruction of any building demolished according to actual legal construction irrespective of the number of buildings permitted on the relevant plot according to a valid plan, and whereas TAMA 38 is a plan ranked normatively higher than the applied plan in place, no publication of facilitation regarding the number of houses included in the permit is required.  The appeals committee also rejected the claim according to which the decision concerning the adjacent building prevents approving the permit application.